The most difficult lie I have ever contended with is that life is a story about me.

The Switch.

2011-01-08T18:05:00.001-05:00

You can now find me at http://annemariedimond.wordpress.com/

Wordpress isn't anything too new, I just like it better. Sorry blogspot, sorry google.

Wordpress is just so gosh darn user friendly.

On the Writer's Pen

2010-11-21T13:08:00.002-05:00

Its a dangerous thing for a writer to pick up a pen. And dangerous to put it down, i suppose. In the first case, there is danger in what might be said. Though, dangerous things are said all the time. Its no different to write them down. It is perhaps better to write them down than to keep dangerous things inside. And that is the thought that leads me to the second case, the case of the writer who retreats her pen back into her pocket. Whether her motive be lethargy or fear, the result is similar: dangerous things stay inside. And along with them, the safety that comes from un-penning dangers with a pen.

The Living Room is Not a Place to Live

2010-09-14T18:49:00.003-04:00

This is the next poem in the "series" (only a series because its the only terrible poetry I write), after "Quiet Light."

The porch is a nice place to sit,
if you're comfortable.
It seems like we should be,
my twin
and I,
those with the same faces often are.
But the confusion keeps us from depth
of understanding.
So, come in.
The living room is an area for furthering knowledge.
Not all together comfortable,
it's more of a parlor.
Stiffer,
but a start.
We speak in pleasantries.

Summer Update.

2010-06-28T02:52:00.002-04:00

This is a really long post. Be forewarned.

Hello my dearest friends and family,

Well, this is an update on my summer. Sorry I haven't gotten one out yet, and sorry in advance that I may not get another one out before I leave here. This is a full summer, but also a restful one, a life-changing one, a living-learning one, and a heart and mind-expanding one. I wish you could all be here and meet my friends. By friends, I mean the people in the community I live in (college students here to learn about urban ministry and serving in all different kinds of internships), the people I work alongside (8 other interns and 5 staff members on Dry Bones staff), and the people I have met on the streets (hundreds of street kids...ranging from little kids to 50-year-olds). I love these people and I have fallen in love with Denver because of them. I don't know whether or not I will ultimately end up here, but it certainly has a piece of my heart.

I am not going to plunge into facts about my days. Suffice it to say, I have class on mondays (soul care, social work class, and movie discussion) and fridays (history of denver and urban centers conglomerate/urban theology) and I work all day on Tuesdays-Saturdays with Dry Bones. I build relationships with the street kids(ages 14-25ish) and help host/teach/act as a bridge for the suburban youth groups that come in weekly on what we like to call “vision trips” (some of them think they are coming on missions trips to bring Jesus to the city...they quickly discover that He is already there...and will be there when they leave...and is bigger than they ever imagined). It's really sweet. I LOVE giving what we call “turf tours,” which are tours of the not-so-oft-seen-parts of the city, a tour that talks about what the city values, gives more of the perspective of the street kids, and teaches about many of the struggles faced by those on the street, physically and mentally. I wish I could take you all on one, tomorrow. So that's that. When the youth group leaves we challenge them to get to know their city in this way. On the tour we first pray the simple prayer that the Lord will “open our eyes to see the city as He sees it.” We send them out hoping they will pray the same in their places of occupancy.

Great. Now on to my mental/heart life:

We are taking a class called “City of Joy” on Fridays with an old friend of the family, a brilliant Denver Seminary Professor, and a wonderfully kind man, named Jeff Johnson. One of the most poignant lessons thus far (though most of us confess we love every class and could listen to the man talk for hours and hours) was one he taught in a park by his house. He opened up to Judges 19 with a heavy content warning and, according to my journal from later that day, this is what was taught- “Jeff Johnson taught a beautiful and poignant class yesterday on Judges 19. The passage is about the brutal death of an unnamed woman, a sex slave, at the hands of a Levite (who claimed to love her, and was on a journey to “speak tenderly to her” to convince her to return home with him), resulting in subsequent wars for hundreds of years. This began with a call to action in the form of 12 mutilated pieces of this woman's body going out throughout the land after she had been gang raped by men in the tribe of Benjamin on their way through their land.

Apparently this gross misconduct seemed, to him, to warrant an equally gross action. When the people saw it they said “such a thing has never happened or been seen since the day the people of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt; consider it, take counsel, and speak.” They did not do the first two. The people simply “spoke.” They declared war on Benjamin, the initial perpetrators of a crime against the woman, and killed all their men. There was not a pause to reflect on the pain and atrocity, just quick action. Suffering met with more suffering. When the Levite was cutting up the woman, it says that he (in Hebrew) chose the body, took it, broke it, and sent it. This language seems to directly parallel Christ's bodily death, as well as communion language. Also, this unnamed woman is from Bethlehem. Typology? Is Christ telling us that he is the suffering, nameless, sex slave, brutally murdered and betrayed by those who claimed to love him?

Jeff says yes. I think I say yes too. This is theology from below. This passage teaches us to pause and reflect, like the Israelites did not, on the atrocities in the world, in fact to identify with them, feel them, not perpetuate them by quick action or demean them by speedily moving past them. Sit in the pain. As Dry Bones philosophy goes, grace, like water, flows down. Grace pools up in the low places, in the bleeding and broken places. We sit there and are overwhelmed by grace flowing down....

Read Psalm 10
Read Matthew 25:45

Jesus gives us permission to put him into the story of Judges 19, into the cry of the Psalmist and into the lives of people in the low places in our daily life.”

Jeff taught us this lesson in a park, a park he later shared was the site of a murder of a 21-year-old woman, unknown by most. We sat uncomfortably in the heaviness of that event for a bit. We silently prayed for the unnamed and the faceless in our own communities, we spoke the names of those in the low places, the people the Jesus taught us to care for. Those people seemed all of a sudden so very sacred, the kind of people that Christ would identify Himself with.

I meet Jesus every day on the streets. The heroin addicts, the prostitutes, the HURTING. There are lots of stories like this in the Bible, but sometimes we don't read it like this. We read it for rules, for laws to govern our lives. We are learning this summer to read the Bible with a divine imagination, and from below. A theology of the suffering, a theology that, for me at least, takes a LOT of imagination since physical struggles are pretty far from the physically blessed life I have had.

These things are, however, transferrable to everyday life. Everyday we are so near to the privately hurting and broken, somedays we are the hurting and the broken. This summer is a summer about learning to sit in those hurting places for a little longer than may feel comfortable so that I can be an agent of grace or experience that grace myself, the grace that pools up in the low places.

May the Lord bless and keep you, make his face shine upon you, lift up his countenance upon you, be gracious to you, and give you peace.

Love you all a ton and a half,
Annie Marie Dimond

P.S. You should really check out this website. My picture is on it...if that helps:
drybonesdenver.org

Dry Bones Denver

2010-06-06T18:15:00.003-04:00

Check it out folks. Watch the video on the home page--this made many a team member cry, and we haven't even met most of these people yet.

http://drybonesdenver.org/updates/home

Still lovin' this place.

It's Colorado Time.

2010-06-03T01:11:00.002-04:00

This Denver place is cool.
These people are cool.
These ministries are cool.
The backpacking trip I just took into the mountains was cool.

Dang, folks.

Seriously. I have been here less than a week and I am blown away by the devotion of the people I have met to love the each other, the least of these, and the city of Denver in general. No imperialism. Just relationships. Not "here I have this for you, this is what you need." Just "hey, lets be friends. I'll meet the needs you ask me to meet, and you'll meet the needs I ask you to meet. That's what friends do."

I love it. Here is the mission statement of Dry Bones Denver, the place I will be interning 40-50 hours weekly: "In the context of relationships, serving and loving in the way of Jesus, we meet the spiritual and physical needs of homeless youth and young adults. We seek to equip, inspire, and deploy believers to relieve suffering, facilitate reconciliation, and free the heart to love."

Everything happens in the context of relationship, just how it should be.

Happy Mother's Day, Mommy

2010-05-09T00:50:00.002-04:00

My Memory

2010-05-03T08:18:00.002-04:00

I have a terrible memory. This morning my friend told me that I actually wrote that poem in college. Though I have no recollection of it, and though i found it in my high school file box, it seems that I wrote it in my interpersonal communication class.

I could've sworn I wrote it in high school. Man. My memory is that of a 95 year old woman.

Quiet Light

2010-05-01T21:25:00.002-04:00

[I wrote this in high school. I don't do poetry. There is no rhythm. I like it.]

noiseless,
hum of the porch light.
unfortunate, for her.
not for the doppleganger,
though.
a perfect decibel.
silence exudes from her halt;
not screeching to or grinding to,
for that matter.
the self similar knocks at the door.
it is loud, louder,
when it's quiet,
but not when it's louder, loudest.
she rewishes the noise,
from the twin,
who has not such powers.
the luck.
the light was on, welcoming.
switch was broken,
would have been off,
maybe.
the luck.
come in, I guess.
never a good time for them to break.
switches, that is.
nor to meet herself,
on the porch.

Straight Outta the Echo

2010-04-17T15:10:00.003-04:00

For those unaware, the Echo is our student newspaper. I wrote this article the week before National Student Leadership Conference, which was, for lack of a more creative word: AWESOME, and also called "RE: imagine, RE: create, RE: new". But, more on that later. Here is the article:

This is the section of the paper that, in general, deals with art as we most often conceive of it—movies, music, books, television. I would like us to move behind much of what we consider good art to the place from whence it came. The creative mind.

To be fair, we should probably back up one more step and ask where our creative minds came from, but that's beyond the scope of this little piece. We will just answer the question—we were created by a more perfectly creative mind, in whose image we are also made. And because of this fact, I come to what I really want to say: it is not just the “artists,” as classically understood, who have a creative role to play in this world. We all do.

After all, what does the best art do? Bring joy, heighten awareness, make us ask difficult questions, help us contextualize, impress us with the power and capacity of the human mind, enrich our lives in a variety of ways, juxtaposition things to reveal a new perspective, et cetera. I do not want to diminish actual works of art and their role in our lives, only to say that if you find yourself in a similar place as me—with an inability to paint, draw, compose music, or write a good story—this does not diminish your responsibility to creatively act in the world.

We don't talk like this often, so it might be a bit of a challenge to discover what this actually means, and then looks like. Fortunately for us, the Creator who made us, made us in a variety of ways, with a variety of passions, gifts and backgrounds and an infinitesimal number of ways for our creativity to manifest. We should start trying some of those out. I can't really imagine what life would be like if we taught and encouraged thinking, dreaming, relating, speaking, and formulating creatively. I like to call it “life art.” Maybe that's not a very creative name. No doubt this kind of creativity already occurs, but no doubt there is a lot of room to grow into this part our true selves.

Some might say that life wouldn't change too drastically if we didn't have art. Or, that we don't need art, so we sure don't need this “life art.” I beg to differ. Surely, life would still be full of circumstances in which we encounter deep pain, confusion, darkness, and sorrow. But, I think that creative approaches to dealing with the difficult reality of what we have faced, are facing and will face in this world are life giving.

Life art (as well as art classically understood) can bring context for our pain, clarity in or confusion, light in our darkness, and redemption to our sorrow. It gets to us in ways that other things can't. It surprises us. It changes us. It is so very unnatural that it jars us out of our normal ways of being, thinking and doing, and renews us, and we need that. If we all did it, it might be a bit like creating a life-giving culture that we could draw people into, kind of like the Kingdom of God. That seems important to me.

Continual Clanging of Symbols

2010-04-13T11:26:00.004-04:00

This is an excerpt from Charles Williams' "Bors to Elayne: on the King's Coins"

"...Money is the medium of exchange.

Taliessin's look darkened; his hand shook
while he touched the dragons; he said 'We had a good thought.
Sir, if you made verse you would doubt symbols.
I am afraid of the little loosed dragons.
When the means are autonomous, they are deadly; when words
escape from verse they hurry to rape souls;
when sensation slips from intellect, expect the tyrant;
the brood of carriers levels the good they carry.
We have taught our images to be free; are we glad?
are we glad to have brought convenient heresy to Logres?'

The Archbishop answered the lords;
his worlds went up through a slope of calm air:
'Might may take symbols and folly make treasure,
and greed bid God, who hides himself for man's pleasure
by occasion, hide himself essentially: this abides--
that the everlasting house the soul discovers
is always another's; we must lose our own ends;
we must always live in the habitation of our lovers,
my friend's shelter for me, mine for him.
This is the way of this world in the day of that other's ;
make yourselves friends by means of the riches of iniquity,
for the wealth of the self is the health of the self exchanged.
What saith Heracleitus?--and what is the City's breath?--
dying each other's life, living each other's death.
Money is a medium of exchange."

This whole poem gives various perspectives on money as the/a medium of exchange. This beautiful excerpt, though, discusses money as "a" medium of exchange. Render (exchange) to Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. And what is God's exchange medium? Love? Acts of love? Symbols of love? Money is one of those, but oh, there are so many more. "My friend's shelter for me, mine for him," and "dying each other's life, living each other's death." This is beautiful exchange. This is symbolic love. This is a love that points to something important, something outside of ourselves.

Play the Cymbals for Symbols.

2010-04-03T14:19:00.004-04:00

I never know what to name my blog posts. So, I end up with stupid titles like this one, and think of all the cheesiest ways to relate it back to the intended blog message. I am not going to do that to you.

Before I begin talking about Symbols, and why they have been a recurring theme this week, please take a minute to stare at "symbol" and "cymbal." What an odd conjunction of letters. It only takes four seconds before I think they are misspelled. Weird words.

Really though, Symbols.

Monday night my Marion Spring Break team went to the Community School of the Arts and met with the director. He was a dynamic, talkative guy who somehow got on the subject of not feeling comfortable in churches. He doesn't like the raising of hands or "making a show" in church. I understand that. I started thinking about how potentially a lot of artists might not feel very comfortable in church settings. Most churches have cultural symbols that they get attached to and stick to. They are inherited symbols, and because they come from the Church, we don't question their purpose. We can tell that this is true when we go into churches in which we know that the regular order of worship hasn't changed at all since the Grandmothers were toddlers in the very same church. This isn't bad, maybe. This is just an observation. Unless we create them, or discover something detrimental about the old ones, symbols in churches rarely change--even our language doesn't change.

I can see why this would be a problem for the artistic crowd (and thus should potentially be a problem the church must address). Artists create symbols all the time. It is their mind's work to find new ways to represent truth and beauty and goodness in some powerful manifestation. It is the refreshing and readjusting of these symbols that keeps our minds renewed. After all, a symbol is not an end in itself, it always represents something. If we are creating symbols that are true to what they represent, then we should not be worried that a symbol change will skew the true of the message. When we worry about symbol renewal, we worry about breaking out of tradition, we worry about "not doing something the way its always been done." And, in my personal opinion, this often leads us to worship the symbol instead of that which it represents.

This is a difficult task in a church. After all, many powerful symbols have already been created, and are GOOD. Communion, baptism, songs of worship, etc., are all good, and quite important, really. But, not as important as what they represent. If we do not need to renew these symbols, then we do need to renew the way we see them, lest they become dead practices of a dead people.

I do not know how all of this works, but I think that the people of American Christianity (for that is the only culture of Christianity I know), hold on to many a symbol, in many a denomination, and have become partial to and partisan about their symbols. This does not mean that we should go out and start new churches in cities where there are already hundreds, but it does mean that we should come into who we are a creative beings and breathe new, God-given life into the symbols and traditions in the buildings we meet in every Sunday, of every week.

After all, would it be too terrible if a Methodist Church recited a liturgy, or if we learned to powerfully use everyday language instead of "Christianese" when we talked with people? Sounds crazy, I know. Sometimes, though, I think we need crazy to wake us up from complacent rhythms of everyday life.

(This thought process was spurred on by a visit to an Episcopal Church in Marion during this Holy Week. Each service was VERY powerful to me. I had never really experienced liturgy before, and was VERY impressed by the power of the new symbols I was witness too).

The Picture.

2010-02-24T09:47:00.005-05:00

In George MacDonald's book, The Wise Woman, there is a scene in which a girl stands in front of a picture. The picture is what she wishes for. A girl, much like her, standing on a stream, unassuming, good. She wants to be that little girl, and as soon as she wants it, she is allowed into the picture. She steps in, and realizes that the idealization of the situation of the little girl was a misstep, for the other little girl's life was not at all free of problem or pain.

In my C.S. Lewis and friends class, my professor asked us to write a description of our picture--the ideal situation--the one that we convince ourselves to believe would be better, our "if only" picture. We read them to each other after ten minutes of writing. Here is what I wrote. It is not very well written, after all, it was more of a stream of consciousness, 10-minute endeavor. But, there is a beauty in the rawness of an admittance of our ideals as they come to us.

The little girl was quite puzzled by the first picture that she came upon. It was much like an infinite regress of pictures. A picture, of a picture, of a picture, of a picture, of a picture, of a picture of a, well, picture. And she supposed it would go on forever. When she finally got past the confusing nature of the picture itself, her eyes rested on the "initial picture," the first layer, and she realized that it was a girl, much like herself, at least in station, staring at a picture, eerily like herself, and then, of course, she realized that just as she (the onlooker) was looking at a picture of a picture of a picture of a picture, etc, so was the little girl in the picture. There was one primary difference, however, and that was that the girl in the picture was not half as confused by the picture as the little girl outside of the picture. She was, it seemed, quite a bit more satisfied with her understanding of the picture. The little girl was immediately envious of the girl once removed. Upon further reflection, the little girl was almost angry at the little girl for her wise and simple looking face and posture in the midst of what seemed to be such an overwhelmingly complex visual conundrum. Her anger at once turned to conceit. I deserve such wisdom and understanding, thought the little girl. That should be me. Things would be infinitely better if I could understand things like infinity, as this girl in the picture seems to. And suddenly, she found herself in the picture. It looked different, but the same...

The Power of Contrary Choice.

2010-02-16T14:52:00.004-05:00

Do we have it?

This is the question that has pitted the Arminians and the Calvinists/Libertarians and the Determinists against each other for far too long. This blog post will not erase that divide. This blog post is my way to process the opinions of two devout groups represented in great number (for both "sides") that happen to be personal friends of mine.

So, we have the Calvinists. They want to "protect" (in a sense) the sovereignty of God. He is all powerful, knowing, good, et cetera. Thus, nothing happens unless it has been directly ordained and predestined by Him. Those who are Christians are chosen, they have to be, because they cannot, in their fallen state, ever really choose God. His grace is irresistible to them because He has opened their hearts and minds to receive Him.

Also, we have the Arminians. They want to "protect" (in a sense) free will. After all, they say, worship means nothing if it is compelled, if the world is just a mechanism and we are puppets on a string. Those who are Christians have seen the light and are living with the mission to help others find the Lord, because that is their job. No one is chosen, or denied salvation, they just need to be told. And, when they are, they have the ability to choose whether or not this is something they will believe.

[these may not be entirely accurate representations of what some adherents of these views believe. That is ok, the point is that I don't end solidly in their camp anyway.]

There are many, myself included, who just find the situation to be a little more intricate, mysterious, nuanced, et cetera than either of these views afford. Now, it will remain those things, even if I choose to formulate my beliefs in a different way. We have to put our beliefs into some sort of system in order to think of them. So, I will use John Donne's Holy Sonnet #14 (which has undoubtedly been cited before on my blog) to elucidate this problem, this pull that we feel between choice and compulsion, and then proceed to analytically process an "answer" to such a problem.

Here is is:

Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captivated, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

This poem, it seems, is a choice. The key moment is when Donne says, "Take me to you, imprison me." He wrestles with his inability to participate in the good, while, in fact, participating in the good decision to give over his reason, his morality, his life, to this "three person'd God." It is as if that is the only good choice he can make. He can make the opposite choice, it seems, but this is the only one that is truly life-giving. This decision, however, insinuates that he desire is to be compelled in a sort of "irresistible grace" sort of way. He is asking to be compelled to the point of imprisonment for the good, to God.

And so he lives in this tension, as I think we all do. We, on my view, by the grace of God, are free to choose Him (and we have this choice to bring Him glory), but when we are choosing Him, we are asking that he take away this freedom of contrary choice so that we no longer have freedom from external compulsion, but instead, are free to do his will. (Though this power of contrary choice hasn't really left us...but maybe it will in Heaven?!) But, all the while, this is a choice we have made to give over this power, but its also a choice he has given us. So, its not really up to us, but it is because He let it be so that our worship might be genuine, but then we give it back to Him because we, tainted by sin cannot genuinely worship, in which case, by His guidance, we must act.

Oh my. Enough for today.

Stop. Motion. Sledding.

2010-01-14T00:29:00.003-05:00

Mark, Gracie, Nathan, and I had a grand old time on New Year's Eve day. We went sledding on the only one (man-made) hill in Rochester, IN. Love it.

It's Complicated.

2010-01-11T19:41:00.004-05:00

No, this is not a post intended to review Meryl Streep's new blockbuster hit (joke).
Its not too complicated, even based on the commercials, to know that that one isn't really worth my time.

But, there are some things that are really complicated. Such as:

1. When you are walking outside in the freezing cold, and have forgotten your gloves, where do you put your hands? You could leave them in the cold, or you could put them in your pocket. It may seem like an easy choice, but consider, also, the ice on the ground. If you fall you need your hands--and they are not easily accessible when they are hidden in your pockets.

2. (And the real reason for this post, inspired by today's post-spanish class events) Who you are, versus who other people think you are. It, at first glance, doesn't seem like a complicated problem. I, after all, am the only one with access to my mind, and thus, a full analysis of it. How much of who I am is what resides in my mind, though? It can't be all of it. Though I may be the only with access to the inside of me, I am also the only one without access to visual or aural perception of myself from without. While motivations and desires (which exist somewhere outside the physical) are key in comprising who we are, it must also be said that many of these thoughts/beliefs/motivations, are not really that real unless incarnated. Once they become incarnate, we are no longer their only perceiver, others can perceive and interact with them. While others might be able to perceive these actions/manifestations/incarnations, this is not directly correlated to a correct appraisal of motivations/thoughts/desires that gave birth to said actions/manifestations/incarnations. [Such causes become more clear, however, in people whose actions seem to follow a discernible pattern, coherently interacting with other motivations, causing correlated action, in different areas of their life. So, it seems that we are the only ones that can understand, with certainty why it is that we do things--or can we? To some extent, probably, and yes, probably better than those around us, however, this may take a higher view of human mental life than I would like to assume. Often (and i think this is biblical) if we aren't aware of the warring passions in our minds, and even if we are, it can become overwhelmingly confusing to discern specific motivations and correlate them to specific actions. It takes work, like most complicated things.

So.

Today we tried to work to a better understanding of ourselves. And by "we" I refer to Mark, Jordan, and Steve. We went through the Strengths Finder 2.0 book (using it more for our own purposes than testing purposes), looking through the list of 30-some adjectives or "strengths" in order to help further identify the gaps in our own lives between perceived motivation from within and perceived motivation from without. There were some discrepancies, not many, but instead of discouraging me by showing how much people, even people around me, don't understand me, it served to be a cool time of encouragement--like a "hey annie, you might not think that this is you, and even if it is not natural to you, you do this, which means this, and it is helpful in this way," or a "hey, annie, you may lack any (or "annie" if that joke is thrown out) empathy, but you are working on it, and we appreciate you for the strengths you do have, and we aren't gonna throw you out because you suck at identifying with peoples hurts."

That is cool. I'm pretty sure that it's part of being the body of Christ--reflecting back to one another the characteristics we have been gifted with, helping one another see where each excels, and where each falls short(of the glory of God), and loving each in either case. This also might be a part of loving God with our mind--the pursuit of understanding Him, through understanding who He created us to be.

Its complicated, but good.

{compulsory}

2010-01-02T23:28:00.001-05:00

Its the new year....I have to write a blog post. Everyone else is.
{Maybe I should make a new year's resolution to be less of a conformist}

-a half hour later-
I literally thought forever(a half hour) about what I could write.

I just can't think meaningfully about my life in years, or months, or weeks, or days.
So I won't.
{New Year's resolution: fulfilled}

What do philosophy majors do?

2009-12-10T22:21:00.003-05:00

This.
This is a paper for my metaphysics class. You probably won't want to read the whole thing. You might. It shouldn't be too confusing, except that my writing skills are not quite honed. I'm just putting it here for posterity's sake. We all know how often hard drives crash these days.

Enough. Here it is--

All is Flux: What Change Means for the Persistence of Personal Identity

Change, the becoming different of certain particulars, has posed no small problem in philosophy throughout time. It would seem that “to be” would mean to remain the same, thereby maintaining the same “being,” and persisting in identity. Quickly though, we are posed with a problem when an entity that possesses “being” is “becoming” something else by change of some property. We are left with a few different options to explain such a phenomenon. We can deny change all together; but this option seems counterintuitive, as this discussion would be irrelevant if change wasn't evident all around us. Or, we can affirm that change occurs and that because of this, nothing persists in its identity; but here again, by merely examining this problem over a long period of time, we affirm ability to conceive of, at least, our own existence as persisting mentally. We can explain away change in many different ways to show that the identity of anything with an essence, a mind, or a memory can persist. But, in this paper, I would like to go a step further than this mere explaining away, and explore the paradox of change in light of the Aristotelian notions of material, final, and efficient causation, and its potential to not only destroy persistence of personal identity, but instead, to allow a being to step into a fuller identity.
One of the primary “paradoxes of change” comes in a series of questions about the nature of “Locke's Socks.” In this paradox, socks, and not persons, are the subject, making the problem simpler, but nevertheless, providing a principle that can be abstracted. John Locke wonders about whether, when his sock develops a hole, it is the same sock if he patches it. He wonders further, if this process were to continue until all the material of the sock was entirely replaced, would the sock, lacking all of the original material, be the same sock? Does its identity persist despite lack of identical material substance? I think that in order to “answer” these questions we need to ask another question in response: Can anything be “itself” when it is not fulfilling its purpose? It seems clear that a sock is intimately tied to its purpose, and thus is more itself when it is patched. In Aristotelian terms, this purpose is a “final cause,” the end for which a thing was created. Thus, the sock's “being” is found in fulfillment of that purpose. This not to say that what it is made of, in Aristotelian terms, its “material cause” is unimportant, but to say that materials do, in all cases, deteriorate. This seems to be a reason to assert, to all material causes, the property of deterioration or change, leaving us unsurprised when deteriorating material properties take away the ability to fulfill a purpose.
Upon further reflection, it seems that change is a property that resides above and within the materials themselves, existing as a meta-property. And purpose, or final causation, is a property that we ascribe, by mere creation, to all things, a kind of teleological meta-property. The issue, and where the paradox seems to lie, is where these two meta-properties conflict, the point at which change or deterioration runs against an entity's ability to accomplish its final cause. A decision must be made about whether we consider the teleological property supersedes an entity's deterioration, in this case, a sock's deterioration.
When we attempt to apply what we have learned from the sock to our experience as human beings, we find that the problem becomes much more complicated. Besides a difference in final cause, the sock's situation is distinct from the human person's situation in that for the person there is a conscious volition, whereas the sock, and how its identity will persist, are the conscious choice of not the sock, but the wearer of the sock. It is here that the sock analogy diverges from the true subject of this paper, the persistence of personal identity.
Taking care to be thorough, and fair, we will present this paradox of identity with the human person as the subject of inquiry. Human persons, like socks, possess, at least, the two causes we have spoken of thus far, material and final. The socks, like the human persons, possess a third Aristotelian “cause,” the “efficient cause,” or creator, though this cause is less important when we discuss the sock because of the wide range of efficient causes for the wide range socks we might encounter in the world. It is also important to note that the despite this diversity of socks we find in the world, the final cause of a sock is much more widely agreed upon, making it easier to diagnose a view on how to weigh the teleological property and its intersection with its material meta-property of change in the sock's persistence of identity, though even that is, by no means, a simple task.
With these differences in mind, we will begin to work out a view of identity for human persons. We acknowledge that humans change, sometimes as a result of personal volition and action, sometimes as a result of material deterioration, or sometimes as a result of intervening outside causes. There are, unlike the socks, many ways that a person can change, many of them being immaterial or mental. But, like with the socks, personal material causes will naturally change, according to their meta-property of deterioration or change, which is as persistent as the materials themselves. And before considering other changes that may happen less naturally, or without conscious choice, we must decide on the teleological meta-property of human beings, because, like the socks, whether or not change conforms with a human person's final cause is a determining factor in how personal identity persists. And here there are a variety of highly debated options, but, as with all other material entities, I assert that there is a final cause to the human person, something that many would not do, and that even further, this final cause emanates from the efficient cause, or creator, the God of the Christian Bible, which is, again, one more large step in a direction many would not take. However, on Aristotle's view, the burden of proof is on those who would want to rid his system of final and efficient causes as they pertain to the human person. I will move forward asserting that these causes do not only exist, but highly inform personal identity and its persistence over time.
Thus far I have ascribed to the human person an efficient cause, the God of the Bible; a final cause, or teleological meta-property, found in the purposes of the efficient cause; a material cause, the stuff human persons are made of; and the meta-property of change or deterioration effecting material cause (which may or may not be all material, depending on one's view, but is a discussion outside the scope of this paper). When this point was reached in the analysis of the sock's identity, the teleological meta-property, that a sock would insulate a person's foot, and the meta-property of deterioration of material cause, which caused the sock to have holes, were pointed out as conflicting meta-properties. If the teleological meta-property is seen as most important, then the sock retains its identity, even when patched, and perhaps moves even closer to its original identity when the patch is applied. This patching can even be seen as a reversal of the material deterioration meta-property, a material reclamation property, acknowledging that the material is merely a means to a fulfillment of purpose. However, if the material deterioration meta-property is seen as preeminent, then when it is patched the sock loses its identity. It is also important to note that even without the patch, a sock with holes in it will have an identity devoid of purpose in the end since, even though it is the “same” sock because it has stayed true to it's meta-property of deterioration, it can no longer be the material between foot and shoe, so any clinging onto a strictly material deterioration meta-property as distinct from the teleological meta-property is a denial of persistence of purposeful identity. When we begin to apply this to the human person we see a similar dilemma, where do we place identity? Which of these meta-properties will win out?
For the Christian, it seems that the material cause is quite important. In scripture, an emphasis is placed on the body, mind, and soul—all components that “materially” (this word is used loosely) comprise a human person. It is important, however, to note that in the majority of cases, when scripture speaks to these material causes, it pairs them with efficient and final causes as well. In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Paul states, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” He speaks of the material cause, the body, as subject to the final and efficient causes, honoring God and His purposes with the material cause. Paul goes farther, in Romans 12:1-2, when he urges the people “to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Not only is the body subject to this teleological meta-property, but so too with the mind—both are subjugated to the will of God. The whole of scripture speaks to this truth. Man, who is separated from God, is deteriorating on a number of levels, his material cause is subject to the fall, to the meta-property of deterioration. This, for many, is a defining property, and thus, their identity “persists” by a natural deterioration meta-property.
For many, the deterioration of their human mind and soul is something they are not aware of (though most are quite aware of bodily deterioration), and in the search to find and assert a final and efficient causation, people create their own teleological meta-properties to cope with the meta-property of deterioration—as if that is something that can be done, man not having created himself. For the Christian, the problem of deterioration is no less of a problem, but the Christian person, acknowledging the deterioration, also acknowledges a higher meta-property, a teleological meta-property, rooted outside of himself in his final and efficient causes. He asserts the existence and importance of the material cause in one's identity as it conforms to a “renewal,” taking the meta-property of deterioration and flipping it on its head, allowing life and purpose-giving change, in the mind and soul, hoping for this same bodily renewal after death. On the Christian view, the final cause, God, and the efficient cause, his purposes, directly oppose the human material causes, which have fallen out of accord with the former two causes. Paul bemoans this fact in Romans 7:22-24 saying, “For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” The answer, for Paul, and other Christians is found in the person of Christ, who bridged this meta-property gap, and allowed us to say that “In [God, our Final Cause] we live, and move, and have our being.” It is because of Christ that a Christian may not only persist in identity only on the basis the property of deterioration, but, align his material cause with the pursuit of his final cause, often called sanctification, resulting in an even fuller identity.

Excuses, excuses. and pardons.

2009-12-03T01:10:00.004-05:00

I think that we don't make enough excuses for people.

Christ gave up his life to pardon all, including the ones nailing Him to the cross. He did this unconditionally, He did this though He didn't deserve it, He did this even though we didn't deserve it, He did it knowing full well that many would not accept or even acknowledge His sacrifice, He did all the work, not expecting us to do anything, He, alone paid the price for things that He didn't do.
He took blame, and excused us from it, he pardoned us from it.

Where, in our lives, do we make excuses for the life and death of Jesus not being the focus? Where do we not make excuses for other people, like we excuse ourselves? We have been taught, many of us, since we were young, that “[We] are Special.” Max Lucado wrote a book about it. We are convinced of it. And honestly, we are. God loves us so much that He sent His son to be our excuse, our pardon. We have been taught that we are special enough for that. We, thus, end up loving ourselves like that. Which, is by no means a bad thing. We make excuses for ourselves all day long. We pardon ourselves, attributing failure to a bad environment, or a slip of the tongue. But, when it comes to other people, we are quick to blame mistakes on intrinsic motivators. So, if I say something mean to someone, I make an excuse for myself, but if someone else says something mean to me, I don't allow them such an excuse, instead, I blame it on all the malice in their heart. In psychology, this phenomenon is called the attribution theory.

We get so caught up in receiving love or giving it to ourselves (in the form of excuses), that we fail to remember that the love we have received in the person of Christ, calls us to be the bearers of that love, giving as we have received. In the same way we have received pardon, we are to pardon others, whether they deserve it or not. This not to say that Christ died as an act of making all the bad things that we had done perfectly acceptable, but instead, that he died that his love might cover a multitude of sins, making us perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps this is what "loving others as we love ourselves" means. I love myself enough to give myself excuses. Loving others might mean excusing others in the same way I allow myself to be excused, forgiving as I have been forgiven.

Katherine Lynn and Alexandra Jane

2009-11-23T14:16:00.003-05:00

The moment of my arrival in St. Louis, Missouri cannot come fast enough. The two women who inhabit the title of this blog post may be the reasons why.

My life isn't full of many people who have known "Duration-Annie." Many people know "Little kid-Annie," "Westminster-Annie," "Sophomore-year Annie," "Homeschool-Annie," and "Taylor University-Annie," which are all, arguably, highly interesting and influential parts of "Duration-Annie," though, each "Section-Annie" loses some of its importance without experience of the other "Section-Annie's."

All this to say, the dear girls I am about to see over break know more than one "Section-Annie," and Miss Stipanovich knows just about all of them.

These are important people to have in our lives, I think. Personal history, like other history, is hard to make real to people without their having experienced it firsthand.

See you tomorrow my lovies.

WHAT IS GOING ON?

2009-11-21T18:34:00.003-05:00

I am currently writing a paper about the sociological effects of the evolution of communication technology, culminating with a discussion on online social networking (of which i am, currently, partaking in, as i write down my thoughts on this blog to help create a sense of interconnectedness of ideas and communal consciousness). So, I was doing some "research" on facebook a couple minutes ago (no really, it was research), and I was looking, sick to my stomach, at old high school friends' pages. Keep in mind that I went to a private Christian school.

I have come to two alternative, but not mutually exclusive, conclusions from today's research:

1) Something needs to change about the system in which these students were educated. Someone needs to give youth the understanding of a metanarrative that will allow for some meta-perspective to reduce rationalization of the silliness in which they are STILL engaging.

and/or

2) Something needs to change about the way communication technology is used. Because, and this is possible, the things written on their facebook walls may not really reflect the actual occurrences and perspectives in their life. However, what else are we to assume? We can, at least, feel certain that what is written and communicated via their facebook pages is an accurate reflection of the extent to which they use facebook and their views on what can and should be communicated via said medium. True to life or not, it is obvious that many believe that sex, drugs, alcohol, and their less than desirable effects are, at least, appropriate things to be joked about, if not abused in the most dehumanizing of ways. If, and this is what I really think, these things are true, then the former applies much more than the latter, as the latter is simply a way of speaking about what is really going on, and, in my opinion, a way to make it less real so as not to deal with it.

And, from these two things, I avow that this is a part of my mission in life: to help youth understand, clarify, gain perspective, and create coherent paradigms in which to understand and cope with the reality of life, as well as help provide a way to speak clearly and creatively about it, so as to help others do the same. Christian schools are doing nothing if they do not do this, Christian people are doing nothing if they are not doing this--sharing real life found in Christ and its relevance to dulled lives devoid of purpose and clarity, advancing the Kingdom of God, not the rules of religion. Rules are not a compelling way to live, but they are a way to categorize the things we do and don't to as a result of where life is most fully found. Rules? Yes. Rules first? No. Lots of tangential thoughts at the end of this paragraph? Yes. Do I mind? No. Have I finished my aforementioned paper yet? No. Will I stop writing now so that I can? Yes.

hypocritical parenting.

2009-10-21T19:16:00.006-04:00

So today (actually it wasn't today, but these sort of reflective stories are always better in the very near past), when I was working at the Jumping Bean, a father and his pre-pubescent son walked up. The boy was standing at an awkward distance from dad, obviously not the "hey dad lets go fishing and spend the weekend together" kind of relationship. His dad, curtly, and not lovingly, said, "you want anything?" (Perhaps his love language is gift giving, but he should pursue a few others, like, kind words, tone of voice, and overall demeanor towards his son).
The boy replied, coldly "Yeah, but you won't let me have it...I want a white chocolate mocha."
The dad said, "You can have anything without caffeine" (An appropriate, father-like answer. I wouldn't want my kids hooked on the stuff either).
The son glares.
The dad says, "I'll have a white chocolate mocha, please." (I'M PISSED at this point. Really, Dad, really? You're gonna drink a white chocolate mocha, the one drink your son wants?)
The child angrily grabs a jones soda.
They pay.
They leave.

Parents, I don't know how many of you read this, maybe I'm just typing this to myself to read someday, if I'm ever in that role. Never, FRICKIN, NEVER, tell your kid they can't have, say, or do something, as if it is wrong, and then do it yourself. Because, let's be honest, we don't want him getting hooked on caffeine (if one white chocolate mocha can do that to you), but we also don't want ADULTS hooked on caffeine either. It's not a necessary evil. It's not. Also, we don't want children hooked on television, highly processed foods, or high fructose corn syrup either, but they are because its convenient. No doubt that father takes his child to McDonald's because its more convenient for him sometimes, or lets him sit in front of the tv for hours on end so he doesn't have to play ball in the yard with him. That's not good either, but its sure easier. Just like its easy to deny kids something and exercise your own power, to feel like you have some, or like you are good dad. Get over yourself, dad of the boy who came into the jumping bean (today).

Sidenote, I find this to be much akin to situations in which: parents cuss and tell their kids not to, parents get drunk and tell their kids not to, parents tell their kids to not lie and then divorce their spouse. Stop it parents. Stop saying one thing and doing another. Kids get confused. And angry. If I were that little boy, I would be angry, and I wouldn't understand. And the answer "because I said so," or, "because I'm your father" would not work. Its a cop out, just like the addictions you DO allow to tv, high fructose corn syrup, and highly processed foods.

Planning Ahead.

2009-10-20T00:04:00.005-04:00

The night before the big midterm in metaphysics i ponder a few questions I have:

Concerning identity of material entities, why wouldn't we assert a hierarchy of properties?
Why can't we affirm that all (but God), is flux, and necessarily so, in that it is part of its essence to change, and therefore does not make it less itself, but a fulfillment of its natural process?
If so, could change be at the top of the property list/a meta property?
If so, then do the paradoxes of the Ship of Theus and Locke's Socks dissolve in that any change is natural/essential/a part of the possibility inherent in the sock/ship?
If so, can we more readily define ourselves and people by using the term "being as becoming"?

Shall I develop a teleological metaphysic for my senior paper?

Yes. I shall.

Judging Glasses

2009-09-30T18:05:00.002-04:00

These are my judging glasses...I used them when I judge Airband.
(special thanks to my roommate, Mary Horton)

I should probably draw out a nice parallel about life, and when I get judgmental...but I'll spare you. Suffice it to say, these glasses rock my face off...just like Airband tryouts.

It's A Grind Coffeehouse..

2009-08-07T15:22:00.004-04:00

That's where I am right now.

Nate just left.
Who is Nate, you might ask?

Well, Nate is the middle aged man who leaned over to me and said, "Did you see him?"

To whom I replied, "No, Who?"

"Nick Nolte...the father from the Hulk. Have you seen the Hulk?"

"No, I haven't," I reply.

"Well He's the father from the Hulk. I see stars all the time. Matter of fact, there are a few rap stars that live right over there (points toward the carwash. I wanted to say Hi to him. But, I figured he probably didn't want to be bothered. I wish the internet was working, I want to find a picture of him and make sure. I think his name is Nick Nolte. I'm so bad with names."

"Yeah, I'm so bad with names too. I probably wouldn't have recognized him, even if I had seen him, I'm not good with faces either. Terrible memory," I say.

"So what do you do?" He asks.

"I'm a student."

"Well, enjoy it while you can. Hey, here's my card. I work in renewable energy. Maybe you'll need it sometime."

(I desperately try to think of a time when I might need to utilize the card he is giving me. Can't find one.)

"Thanks," I say.

(About 5 minutes pass, I go ask about the internet. I sit down. We discuss how if we had the internet, we could find a picture of Nick Nolte, and confirm suspicions. 5 more minutes pass.)

He leans over again, and says, "I don't mean to bother you. I know you are trying to work. But, I just wanted to say that you should...Do you go to church?"

"Yes," I answer, "I go to Rock Harbor, in Costa Mesa."

"Oh, I knew it. I can tell. Well, you should come to visit Saddleback, or watch us on the web, that's where I go. You might see me on stage. I'm on the worship team. I just wanted to ask, you know? I always want to make sure people are getting fed."

"Thanks," I say. "That's great. I really am glad you asked me. Good to know people are doing that."

"I wanted to ask him, Nick Nolte. I wanted to give him my business card. I wanted to invite him to church. I missed my chance. I should have."

(I think to myself, Nick Nolte probably cares as much about your business as I do. But, yeah, it would've been sweet to invite him to church.)

"Don't worry, I'm sure he'll come back in, especially since he seemed to remain inconspicuous the whole time he was here."

"Well, I'm here enough. I'm about to go leave for my third coffee meeting today. I don't need anymore coffee. I don't like the coffee here. It's too, (makes some funny face to say its too bitter, or something"

I nod my head in agreement.

"What's your name, by the way?"

"Annie, yours?"

"Nate. Annie, I might forget your name. But I won't forget your face. I have a photographic thing going on in my head. But I might forget your name."

"Yeah, I'll probably forget your name too. I'm terrible with names."
(I may have said "I'm terrible with names about 4 times throughout the course of the unabridged conversation.)

"Nice to meet you Nate. Enjoy your third coffee for the day. Hope it's better than the one your just had."

"Yeah, and visit Saddleback sometime. I never think its a mistake that we get invited to church. I never turn down an invitation anymore. The Lord will use something that was said. You might not know it then. But the Lord will use it. You may never know, but He will."

"So true. Thanks Nate. Have a great day, good talking to you."

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

I'm not one to just strike up conversations about church in a coffeeshop. I probably should. But, his methods were interesting, and intriguing to me. He engaged me with a tool of culture. He asked me about someone relevant in pop culture. Then he asked me about me, who I am, what I do. Then he asked me about church. It wasn't awkward. Unfortunately, celebrities don't matter to me, so I couldn't get excited with him about that...and I don't "do" anything, per say, except read books and write papers as a student. But, that method would be pretty effective with a majority of people. Evangelism isn't really a strength of mine...but today I was encouraged by Nate, who has found an effective way to engage people in conversation, to make sure they are being fed.

Perhaps the encouragement itself, outside of any church invitations, is what the Lord wanted to teach me through this interaction. I doubt I'll be going to Saddleback soon, especially since I leave in 2 weeks...which is hardly enough time at my own church here, Rock Harbor, currently engaged in a series about Spiritual gifts.

Mmm. Good. At least something good came out of the fact that the Mission Viejo Library doesn't open until 1pm. But seriously, counting the 13 minutes left until that glorious place opens. Love it.

And the roadtrip finds us in Denver.

2009-07-25T02:57:00.003-04:00

It is possible that a lot of city people don't believe in God because of light pollution.

All I'm sayin' is, Colorado stars are incredible. I could have driven all night long just looking at them. Daddy was tired, however, so here I am, at Grandma and Grandpa's house, unable to fall into a peaceful slumber.

But really, I intend to do some statistical analyses. There is no doubt in my mind that those who can see the stars have an increased opportunity to see the power of God as manifested in nature. In fact, Colorado atheists sadden me more than the rest (ok, not really, but COME ON. Its incredible.)

Dang.

Anna Nalick

2009-07-11T16:59:00.001-04:00

must have had the benefit of lungs better than mine. And she should stop mocking those of us who can't simply heed her advice due to a bodily predisposition to not breathe.

Recently,

2009-06-17T20:49:00.004-04:00

On the Swallow Robin Lobby stairs (my permanent hang out for the last 5 days), a website was discovered.

I'll let you check it out for yourself; there is absolutely NO way to describe its ridiculousness, adequately.
http://www.lobsterlib.com/index.html
Primarily, you should click on the tab that says "what you can do." And, take heed.

I want to laugh hard at this. And trust me, I did. As did Josiah, Jorjette, Ben, Travis, and Katie. In fact, we bought 60 stickers for a dollar that say "Being boiled hurts." You gotta raise awareness, ya know?

I mean come on, really?

Interestingly, though, the inanity of this group caused me to wonder if there are any causes that I am needlessly passionate about. If I spend a large part of my time selling any stickers to people, only for them to buy them as a joke put them in ridiculous places in order to make fun of me and the dumb things I am purporting. Ok. I'll confess. I'm a little passionate about eradicating the word "dinner" from our sunday lunchtime vernacular. And, there are some other silly ideas I am persistent about.

Phrases like, "being boiled hurts," serve only to stultify the name of animal rights (interestingly there a few good arguments...though none that I think would justify a lobster liberation movement). I think that we, as Christians, should be wary of doing the same thing to ourselves and beliefs by throwing around trite phrases and appliqued shirts that say "chosen" as they can easily become fodder for ridicule and an excuse to stop short of deeper meaning.

All that to say, since the nice people in the lobster lib program haven't given me anything deeper to cling on to, i will continue to mock the movement. And yes, those stickers will soon grace a few binders and exposed surfaces so that i can constantly be reminded of the insanity of devotion to poorly ascertained, supported, and marketed opinions.

Hey guys, make sure to F.R.O.G. this weekend (Fully Rely On God, that is)

that was ironic.

I don't get internet right now...

2009-06-06T19:45:00.003-04:00

so i'm sorry your birthday movie was late, gracie.

Here is it my love.

love you.

Conversations on Race

2009-05-20T15:09:00.001-04:00

Recently, I was a part of a group project for the culmination of this semester's Conversations on Race class. This video was that project. It was powerful and, I think, VERY important to hear these perspectives. There is A LOT more video, but this project could only be ten minutes, and therefore, its 10:31. :)

Thank you to all of you who participated. I appreciated your kind spirits and willingness to be interviewed, and I would love to continue this conversation. Unfortunately, I lost 1.5 interviews throughout this process (Rhona Murungi and half of Rukshan Fernando's interview), but luckily, they are things that can be said again.

I hope to make another video using these interviews, but to include more talk time, and pull out a few more key themes.

P.S. {I love} T.S.

2009-05-15T00:22:00.004-04:00

Yeah, its true. Don't you just wish he was around right now? I do.

As I sit here, unable to go to sleep (though my body has desired sleep ALL day), a stanza from T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" keeps going through my mind:

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, "Do I dare?" and "Do I dare?"
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--
(They will say: "How his hair is growing thin!")
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin--
(They will say: "But how his arms and legs are thin!")
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which in a minute will reverse

The character that Eliot paints here is almost one who has OCD. You just want to laugh. You just want to scream. You just want to say, "MAKE A DECISION." Stop being so careful. Stop being so worrisome. Stop "measuring out your life with coffee spoons."

And it is here, essentially, I have such a hard time in the Christian community, either because I am guilty myself, or because I am often painfully aware of this indecision. This inability to act.

We spend so much time deciding if it is "God's Will" that instead of really desiring to please Him, we desire not to offend Him. Well, we already offend Him, most days, in fact, so it should come as no surprise that we will likely do it again. And, I think, it is equally as offensive to Him (i suppose I cannot be sure of this equality) for us to sit around waiting for Him to drop anvils on our heads to tell us what to do, where to go, who to marry, what to eat, what church to go to, and so on.

Its as if we believe that serving would be WRONG, if we were not "called" to that church, or that person, or at that time. There is no doubt in my mind that God moves, that God speaks, that God directs. I think though, that Christians often waste time waiting for miraculous signs. As if His Word isn't miraculous enough. He told us what is good, what is true, what is beautiful.

Can we not have faith enough to know that those are still applicable, and if the Lord wants our time, energy, and lives to go elsewhere, He will surely show us that.

This reminds me of something I REALLY appreciated coming from the mouth of Shane Claiborne during social justice week. This will surely not be a direct quote, but, when referencing people who are waiting for God to "do something," he responded as God who was pleading in His reply, saying, "I did do something, I made you."

how true.

I am also reminded of something Dorothy Sayers said in Mind of the Maker, i think. I forget where, and this is possibly a mistaken citation. But I remember that when referencing Miracles, she was of the moving opinion that God doesn't need to use miracles. He doesn't need to "supernaturally intervene." Everything around us is supernatural. We are supernatural beings (as well as natural beings, i suppose), and His Word is supernatural. Even if He never spoke into people's lives audibly today, we could still know how to live as followers of His Son. What a blessing that He does.

But, I believe the Christian church errs in demanding this of God. And, often, I find it comical when He speaks something to reiterate something He has said over and over before. Perhaps miracles are a sign that we seldom believe by faith in what he has already said. Again, not to say we don't need that many times. We must not assume that we will always understand correctly. But we MUST assume that when we don't, the Spirit of the Lord in us will convict us of this.

We can't be perfect. So, a fear of imperfection is a ridiculous one. Thus instead of striving NOT to be imperfect, let us strive to be perfect. Doing good, and knowing that when we fail, God will lovingly, and granted often painfully, redirect us.

I grow old...I grow old...
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.

She's Freaking Legal.

2009-05-13T18:05:00.002-04:00

you are too old.
i love you still.

the annes

2009-05-12T12:09:00.002-04:00

i promise this is not becoming a vlog.

Ode to Steph Snyder

2009-05-11T20:48:00.004-04:00

(as written in winter of '08)
I want bangs. bad.

like, the kind that people look at and reconsider the front of their hair and forehead, and turn to their best friend and say, "hey do you think I should get bangs like so-and-so?

that kind.

or, the kind that make you look like you have some strange sort of confidence. the kind of confidence that says "yeah, I read poetry and comic books, and I'm not afraid to show it...with my bangs."

that kind.

or, the kind that after people see your bangs, they go back to the table they had previously been occupying, only to write down their feelings about the sweet bangs they just witnessed.

that kind.

Mother.

2009-05-10T01:00:00.003-04:00

CRAVE.

2009-05-05T09:49:00.004-04:00

a backrub.
a blended naked juice from starbucks.
a day alone.
a long walk.
my gold flip flops to be fixed.
more time with the anne warners, carly rowlands, sam hobbses, rachel beehs, diana duncans, and kristin goekes of the world.
summer.
CRAM.
new musica.
my ex-ability to edit video.
drive to stop biting my nails.
a leisurely book read.
fall semester.
my forthcoming apartment off campus.
ball jars as drinking cups.
rollerblades.
a topic to blog about.

When you can't really get close to your family...

2009-05-01T02:15:00.007-04:00

[and when you can't sleep]
Find close ups of your family.

I can't wait to see these people really close up, though.

Family narcissism.
it undoubtedly exists.

My mind. Unveiled.

2009-05-01T00:51:00.005-04:00

(at the end of the day)
The world needs some good aestheticians...
this is not my calling...

or perhaps it is a calling for all of us...
or should be, at least.
to know what it means to create, as creations of the creator, whose creativity we reflect.

imago dei?
that was mentioned in my contemporary issues class today.

ooh ooh. This just make me think of something that God cannot be that we can--

a creator and a creation, simulataneously...or can He? If He is eternally begotten of Himself?

Interesting.
I mean, I guess Jesus was a carpenter. Thats creating.
He was also created, er, begotten...eternally.

created. begotten. not the same. Comparable? probably.

I like thinking of things God cannot be. (the list is shorter than things that He actually is)
:)
It makes people unconfortable to know that God cannot contradict himself.
i wonder why?

A product of the western mind? God is entirely outside logic?
eh i don't think so. i mean, He created it.

Hah. Senior year in Graham's worldview class..hot topic--
Can God make a squircle?

A what?
You know, a square circle.

No.

"YES! He can, He's God, He can do anything"
No.
Not that which is logically impossible, since He gave the world Its order, and IS its order,
He can't not be Himself.

What a silly thing to conceive of.

But He does take unexpected, albeit not illogical, forms, i.e. a man, who creates.

Oh. back to square one. Creating.

My mind likes these circles. Not squircles.
Or maybe my mind does like squircles--things that are impossible to think about.

Eternity, for instance.
But thats not logically impossible, just Annie's mind impossible.

Thats why we create sometimes, i think, to suspend reality and enter into things that are logically possible, yet not quite possible to concieve of linearly.

Conceiving of eternity linearly. Thats a funny, impossible, thought.
Concieving of eternity at all? minimally possible, by analogy, abstraction. I think.

What if all of creation is eternally being created in the mind of God and then experienced by us? heresy?
Possibly. Maybe not. Maybe we can't know, logically.
Fun to think about.

Its not fun to think about getting up tomorrow though, in five hours.

What an odd trip into my mind. Sometimes i think I'm crazy.

maybe i am.
that's fun.

Feinberg vs. MacKinnon

2009-04-27T00:37:00.003-04:00

As Feinberg and MacKinnon duke it out over whether or not the government can regulate pornography, Feinberg takes cheap shots and ends up looking like a schoolboy. And the feminist(MacKinnon) wins again. Here's the paper I wrote on Olson front porch this weekend. Mmm. Life is just better on porches.

"Pornography" (Feinberg) vs. "The Real Harm of Pornography" (MacKinnon)
Feinberg begins by pointing to a casual link that many make between rape and pornographic materials. He agrees that rape prevention is a legitimate use of criminal law and restriction of freedom. However, he is unconvinced that there is a strong enough causal connection between said act and said cause to warrant use of governmental restriction of liberty. He points to Kent Greenwalt who claims that “criminal law cannot concern itself with every communication that my fortuitously lead to the commission of a crime.” He elaborates on this by making distinctions between communication for its own sake and communication that advocates or encourages acts that violate previously established criminal law. By using this standard to deem only a very few things worthy of restriction, he concludes that “the relation between pornographers and rapists is nowhere near that direct and manipulative” and therefore not one that necessitate the abridgment of violent pornography which he calls “valuable free expression analogous to scholarly feminist articles.”
The editors of this book decided that they wouldn't put any violent porn directly after Feinberg's essay, but they did, ironically, place a “scholarly feminist article,” which, to me, seems like a much wiser decision. Whereas Feinberg works from within his system to prove the legitimacy of pornography, the subsequent essay, “The Real Harm of Pornography,” by Catherine A MacKinnon, attempts to point out the limitations of dealing with an issue that has pervaded the system so much that it cannot be separated from it. She compares pornography to segregation and lynching in that all three institutionalize the inferiority of one group to another; it is the “essence of a sexist social order, its quintessential social act.” These social acts create a social order in which the harm, inherent in the acts, becomes invisible.
MacKinnon begins to critique first amendment theory by pointing its tendency to be interpreted with a black and white distinction between public and private spheres. The problem with this, she says, is that “not only the public but also the private is a 'sphere of social power' of sexism. On paper and in life, pornography is thrust upon unwilling women in their homes.” The harm in this lies in the fact that liberal political philosophy is hesitant to make pornography illegal because of the desire to make speech as free as possible, this idea fails to recognize that this free speech for some, silences the voices, and thus, the speech of those who pornography targets—women. She bemoans the fact that this is not a harm that is easily demonstrated because it is not the kind that first amendment logic comprehends. “The idea is that words or pictures can only be harmful only if they produce harm in a form that is considered an action. Words work in the province of attitudes, actions in the realm of behavior.” Our country has decided that when words are equivalent to acts, they should be treated as acts, if the consequences matter enough. However, she quotes Heisenberg, saying that “the law of causality...can only be defined for isolated systems.” Unfortunately, social systems cannot be so easily isolated from the system in which they exist, but this does not mean that harm does not exist. It does mean that the harm cannot be perceived as distinct from society's organization itself, and therefore, is invisible—“its effects are not cognizable as harm.” It is not a one-on-one sort of harm, linear in its causality, but rather it is a system of harm that affects a group—women—and members of that group specifically. Therefore, if we attempt to deal with pornography in this system of linear causality then we are refusing to deal with “the true nature of this specific kind of harm.”
Though I have no desire to align myself with most feminist positions, this one is much different. I appreciate MacKinnon's analysis of the democratic system. Whereas Feinberg works entirely within his system and comes to logical conclusions within it, MacKinnon attacks the logic and assumptions of the entire system. Good move. A meta analysis is often needed. I guess we usually just work from within our own systems, failing to see their faults, and thus come to valid but unsound conclusions.
I also thought that MacKinnon's approach was an even handed one. Not only did she not take cheap shots at people like Feinberg, but she also attempted to utilize aspects of his system. It has been my previous experience that many feminist articles wish to elevate “interconnectedness” and “relationships” above rights, however, she speaks to people like Feinberg in their own “language,” using the idea of “rights”—but redefining it, broadening it to include rights that are ignored because of the way our system has been inundated with isms—sexism, racism, classism—whose harm is invisible because they cannot be wholly isolated from the system itself. Her approach seems, to me, to be the very antithesis of Feinberg's. Whereas she is working to make his system better, he is working to defame her approach altogether. He grants that there is not “sufficient grounds for criminalizing materials” such as pornography and feminist articles. How kind of him—how asinine of him—to make any kind of comparison between animalistic materials that grossly suppress free speech of women and scholarly materials that are the direct expressions of women. It almost seems that he not only wants women to be subjected to the harmful effects of pornography on life, relationships, and the psyche, but also to be subjected to not being allowed to talk unless instructing children, teaching cooking classes, or calling to get the vacuum repaired. But, really, I'm not a feminist. MacKinnon just opened my eyes a little bit to see serious issues in this way of thinking (the feingbergesque) that exists in men and women alike.

Some Feminists i DO admire.

2009-04-25T00:23:00.003-04:00

Well, i've never been a fan of feminists, experientially. The whole stereotype, along with the various characters that fit the stereotype to a tee, averted my eyes from the movement for a while. And, while I'm still opposed to many things, and rest, happily, as a complimentarian (though I hate the label), my eyes have been opened as of late to a few things that are, i think, important words from my feminist sisters.

Celia Wolf-Devine. I love what she does in an essay called "Abortion and the Feminine Voice." Its so clever and well, logical. Since, in general, feminists favor an "ethic of care" that elevates relationships, interconnectedness, and, yes, our responsibility to care for others, adherents tend to take this to its "logical" conclusion: an unqualified right to an abortion. Celia, as a feminist, sees things a little differently (and thus was a part of the initial prying open of my eyes to anything that looked in the least bit like a woman in business slacks wrote it...all in jest, all in jest :).

"If masculine thought is naturally hierarchical and oriented towards power and control, then the interests of the fetus (who has no power) would naturally be suppressed in favor of the interests of the mother. But to the extent that feminist social thought is egalitarian, the question must be raised of why the mother's interests should prevail over the child...The woman is supposed to have the sole authority over the child, but what of her interconnectedness with the child and with others? Both she and the child already exist within a network of relationships...Quite simply, abortion is a failure to care for one living being who exists in a particularly intimate relationship to oneself...But clearly those who defend unrestricted access to abortion in terms of such things as the woman's right to privacy or her right to control her body are speaking in the language of an ethics of justice rather than an ethics of care."

I mean, rock it Celia. (nice name, by the way) It is interesting to see how the feminist movement has defined itself, and I wish to do more research on the matter. These things she points out seem blatantly inconsistent, and yet she is the minority amidst a growing population of people who wish to deny systems based on rights, while still claiming the rights they want. Contradictions? Yup.

Alright, another feminist rockstar--Catherine A MacKinnon. The topic she wishes to address? Porn. And address it she does in her essay "The Real Harm of Pornography." You could say that this piece is a bit more of what one might expect from a "typical feminist," but I also think that if i didn't defend something "typically feminist" in this blog post then I would really just be ripping on feminists by using their own kind against them, and thus, i defend...or allow her to defend for herself, which she certainly can do (and she doesn't need a man's help..gosh darnit...again, only joking.)

"The fact that pornography, in a feminist view, furthers the idea of the sexual inferiority of women, a political idea, does not make pornography a political idea. That one can express the idea a practice expresses does not make that practice an idea. Pornography is not an idea any more than segregation or lynching are ideas, although both institutionalize the idea of one group to another...Pornography is the essence of a sexist social order, its quintessential social act..."

"The law of the First Amendment comprehends that freedom of expression, in the abstract, is a system but fails to comprehend that sexism (and racism), in the concrete, are also systems. As a result, it cannot grasp that the speech of some silences the speech of others in a way that is not simply a matter of competition for airtime. That pornography chills women's expression is difficult to demonstrate empirically because silence is not eloquent (if i may interject...WHAT A BRILLIANT SENTENCE)."

"Social systems are not isolated systems...If pornography is systemic, it may not be isolable from the system in which it exists. This does not mean that no harm exists. It does mean that because the harm is so pervasive, it cannot be sufficiently isolated to be perceived as existing according to this model of causality...The dominant view is that pornography must cause harm just as car accidents cause harm, or its effects are not cognizable as harm. The trouble with this individuated, atomistic, linear conception of injury is that the way pornography targets and defines women for abuse and discrimination does not work like this. It does hurt individuals, just not as individuals in a one-at-a-time sense, but as members of the group women..To reassert atomistic linear causality...is to refuse to respond to the true nature of this specific kind of harm."

I think that perhaps I why I liked these essays so much is that it is my own tendency to seek out faults in systems, or general systemic response (call me a critic), and both of these women do an excellent job of critiquing the illogical conclusions that have, repeatedly, been drawn within different frameworks--be they feminist, or democratic. Thanks guys, i mean, ladies (please pardon my use of a word that is, quite obviously, a result of a masculine system).

:)

Legislating Morality: Comparing Islam and Christianity

2009-04-06T03:11:00.009-04:00

[FYI, this is only the last couple pages of a ten page paper, in which I establish the fact that I am aware of the diversity of views within both the Muslim and Christian community, and therefore do not presume to speak for the whole of each religion]

[also FYI, I loved writing this paper, a lot. 18 hours, a lot]

Political philosopher Sayyed Qutb is one of the most famous Muslim intellectuals to emerge from his faith and is very well known for his views on the role of Islam in politics. In his book Islam and Universal Peace, he calls Islam "the religion of unity in this great universe." Coupled with this religion of unity he presents an equally "unified ideology to confront life and its problems, an ideology that will solidify our strength against our foreign and domestic enemies." Sayyed saw peace as the ultimate, unifying goal coming first to the individual conscience, then in the home, then in society, and finally resulting in world peace. One might call "peace" his faith's ultimate moral principle. The way to achieve peace, according to Sayyed, is by adhering to the legislation set forth by the Islamic state which proceeds directly from God who is the "Supreme Legislator." It is in the application of God's law that the Muslim community achieves justice, and Sayyed contends that "Islam is a complete system. One cannot enforce a part of Islamic law and neglect another for then it would not be Islam." It would seem, then, according to Sayyed Qutb, that Islam and the law cannot be separated. An example of this indivisibility can be seen in Pakistan's Blasphemy Laws which say that "whoever willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable for imprisonment for life." Upon the adoption of secular or dual legal systems in Islamic countries, the very things, spirituality and the law, that Sayyed said should not be separated have been pulled apart.
This fusing of law and religion rings a bell in the mind of all who have opened the pages of the Bible's Old Testament. This inseparability takes its most memorable form in the daily workings of the Israelites, whose whole lives were directed by laws said to proceed directly from the mouth of God. The Israelites were God's "chosen people," and though they often forgot, they were obligated to perform certain rites and practices to honor the God who went before them. The Christian should remember that the Israelite tradition is his ancestry, with the concurrent realization that this is no longer the way God requires man to live. It is absolutely imperative in the development of a Christian's political philosophy that he discovers the nature and origin of this change from a religion united with the law to a religion seen as a separate entity from the law. The change can be seen to occur around the same time Jews began to interact with a man named Jesus. This man came to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, proclaiming that he had come to fulfill the law. In Matthew 5:17, he proclaims, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." How is it that a law can be fulfilled? He fulfilled "the law and the prophets", synonymous with the Scriptures, by bringing them the meaning and the motivation that they were waiting for. Jesus seemingly called his followers to an even higher law: the law of love. When asked by the Pharisees, "'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?' Jesus replied, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind...The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." This law of love was even more difficult to practice than various acts because it implied a distinct attitude of love within one's heart coupled with the action. Whereas in the Jewish community law was a series of practices that centered mainly on the concept of justice and on doing what was right, Jesus came and revamped this sort of legalistic motivation by creating a space for the deference of justice in order that love, often seen in the form of grace, might triumph. This is seen in the culminating act of his life—his unjust death on the cross—that through his death and resurrection he might bring life to those who would come to believe in him and accept this gift of love.
And so Christians live, live in accordance with Jesus' revolutionary words, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Christians live in response to his death and resurrection which were the ultimate example of this transformation. This transformation from law to love does not abolish law, but it most certainly does not use the law to achieve its ultimate purpose—a change in human hearts. After all, can the law legislate the motivation of love in all of one's actions? Perhaps this is why when asked about tax laws, Jesus tells the people to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." The law desires specific actions, but God desires a change in the heart of man that is then manifested in his actions.
This Christian attitude toward Caesar, or governmental power in general, lies in sharp contrast to the Muslim attitude toward “Caesar.” In the Muslim faith, "Caesar" legislates morality using the Koran as the ultimate rule of law in the same way that in the Jewish tradition the Torah, gives man a rule of law. The origin of this huge gap between Christian political philosophy and Islamic political philosophy can ultimately be seen in the person of Jesus Christ. "In Christianity, the word of God (logos) becomes Christ; in Islam it becomes the Koran." Islam and Christianity both have a wide range of views on how involved the legal system should be in this process of incorporating ethics into daily living, but when the specific doctrines of the two religions are taken at face value, the law plays a distinctly less important role in the life of a Christian. How could it ever appropriately legislate the human heart, where true transformation must occur in response to the grace it has been given. The logical next question then is, "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" To which Paul responds, "By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?...For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." In essence, in order for Christians to fully "legislate morality," they would need to be God, or at the very least an omniscient being, capable of knowing every thought and motivation of man. Since this is quite impossible, God remains the judge, and man is subject to His law first. In the same way, Muslims are subject to God's law first, but God's law is seen in the form of sharia law as laid out in the Koran. The "legislation of morality" matters to a greater extent in the life of a Muslim, a person much more interested in peace and unity achieved through justice which is most often, realized through governmental enactment of this sharia law.

Next Semester.

2009-03-30T21:21:00.001-04:00

See this girl?

She is going to live with me next year.

what an answer to prayer.

Pride.

2009-03-17T00:35:00.003-04:00

I hate medicine. I hate the way that most medicines deal with the effects, the symptoms, instead of the cause. All painkillers do is make me painfully aware that i'm dulling the pain instead of dealing with a very real problem.

However, after a bout with migraines for a week, i decided medicine was my only option (or sleeping my life away, which had happened already that week). The lovely woman at the health center prescribed me some meds (4 to be exact) to deal with the cause, allergies, and increased sinus pressure.

and then it hit me.

I never effectively deal with my allergies because I don't want to be dependent on medication, and now I must take medication to get at the cause of another problem, my migraines. SO, i will take medicine when they are a cause of something else, but not when they aren't causing anything? Silly.

Allergies are caused by something, and in turn have caused something even worse. I assume that there is not an infinite regress of causes, meaning that if i learn how to truly be heathy, to rearrange my body chemistry so that these issues are not a problem, then I will eliminate said migraines by eliminating said cause.

Perfect.

One problem. that takes serious focus on sleep, water, diet, exercise, knowledge of my body's predispositions for vitamin deficiencies. Oh man. I'm not ready for that. I want to be, idealistically. But, thats just not going to happen.

Therefore, I will take medicine. And I will hate it, but I will love that I'm living comfortably numb with not a migraine in site.

ugh.

This post is for Andrew Smith and all those who once agreed with him...

2009-02-24T14:08:00.003-05:00

So, there was this one conversation, this one time.

It was about the word dinner, as applied to sunday. Some people, not saying who, think that on Sunday, the word dinner magically changes to represent the meal directly after church, which is, on all other days, called LUNCH.

I think this is silly. And I had, and still have, a good argument as to why it is a ridiculous use of language, but I thought that maybe I would provide a little anecdotal evidence for those who remain unconvinced:

This past Sunday I went to lunch at the house of a couple in our church. I went with two friends, and this couple really wanted us to meet their kids who, just like us, are college students. We were all very excited, especially the nice woman who had created a masterpiece of a meal. But, in a strange turn of events, she gets a phone call from her son, saying that unfortunately when she said "Sunday dinner," they took it to mean what it literally means--the evening meal. Perhaps if she had said Sunday lunch things would have worked out. So, the kids never showed, and we got to enjoy even more food than we anticipated. I had a little convo with her about her use of the word "dinner" and "supper" on sundays, we went over the history of it, and the age group that generally uses it. I understand all of this. However, pragmatically, if the older, midwestern generation wants to communicate with the younger generation with greater clarity--Dinner is an evening meal, Lunch happens around noon, and Supper is only to be used interchangeably with Dinner.

End of story.

please read the comments on the post that this is linking to. :)

What a few short years will do.

2009-02-18T23:26:00.009-05:00

Weird.

Time is such an odd thing.

A Comparison of Responses

2009-02-12T19:36:00.004-05:00

Apparently, as humans, we have a tendency to overreact, overcorrect, and overrespond. Perhaps this explains huge paradigm shifts throughout history, and most recently the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism (not to oversimplify it or anything :)). This train of thought started today in my my Contemporary Issues class as we dialogued about moral relativism.

Dr. Smith told a story about sitting under two professors while in grad school, a couple of overt moral relativists. One was an African American woman, the other was a Jewish feminist. He, at certain times, would engage in conversation with these women, asking questions and prodding at the root of their convictions. Once he expressed to one of the women that he was surprised by her moral relativity. She was equally surprised at his surprise, and asked, "And why does this surprise you?" He answered by telling her that he would assume there were definitely somethings that she would see as moral absolutes, rape, for instance. She replied, "Well, if that is true, then why isn't rape within marriage illegal?" To which he replied, "Well, if it isn't, I think it should be." At this point his professor got uncomfortable with the direction of the conversation and said, "I'd love to talk to you about this sometime later."

After telling this story, he started talking about the history of relativism as a response to absolutism. He said that it was his personal opinion (and one with which I tend to agree) that much of how these women got to this place of moral relativity is due to the misuse of absolutism in history. After all, both of these women are part of a culture or race that have been, historically, overrun with prejudice and hate towards their people groups. The disgusting institution of slavery and the holocaust run rampant with justifications on the basis of "moral absolutes." And though there is such an obvious correlation between absolutist principle and gross misconduct, to insist that that there is a causation is to fall prey to a fallacy. As I am reminded by my Intro to Psych professor, "Correlation does not imply causation."

And this is true.

Moral relativism is not a valid conclusion following from the simultaneous existence of absolute principles and gross misconduct. And though it seems and probably is natural to rebel against principles that in any way partook in social structures that served to demean, dehumanize, and destroy people based on race, that does not mean that we do away with principle altogether. What is does mean is that we stop misinterpreting principles that are, in fact, worth something and we rid ourselves altogether of those which serve no good purpose at all.

And now let me make my comparison.

In the same way that relativism is an invalid conclusion because its "causes" are really not causes at all, but correlations, so too with emergentism and those things that have "caused" it. Some of the most obvious result of the emergent movement include a rejection of doctrine and an exodus from traditional church bodies. It is my aim to use the above example to draw a sharp comparison between the overreaction of those offended by various absolutist principles and those (primarily within the emergent movement) who have also, seemingly, overreacted to the offense of "failed" doctrine and stagnant church bodies.

There is no doubt in my mind that the emergent movement is calling good things into question. Why is the church not more concerned with social justice? With engaging culture? With using the arts, and thus our creative natures, to engage in acts of worship? These, as I have mentioned much before, are valuable critiques, not to be ignored. However, it does not follow that doctrine or the church structure itself are to blame for these things. Just because churches follow tradition and endorese very specifict doctrines within their bodies, we cannot thus imply that their lack of social conciousness or altruism is a result of the dogma they claim to adhere to.

It is possible to ignore those things you don't want to deal with the implications of within your doctrine. It is possible to ignore the mission of the Church.

It is possible misinterpret doctrine. It is possible to misinterpret "Church".

It is possible to have incorrect doctrinal statements. It is possible to have incorrect views of what Church is intended to be.

Do we blame the doctrine? Do we blame Church?

When we find absolutist principles that we don't concur with, we don't give up ethical systems all together. We enact reform. We change it. We don't leave ethical studies, we engage them all the more to flesh out what exactly is right.

In the same way,

When we find doctrine that we don't agree with, when we find churches that seem dead. When we find a part of our mission as believers that is absent from the every day lives of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ, we don't give up on doctrine. We don't give up on church. We don't give up on people. What an overreaction that would be, and is.

I suppose my charge is to the emergents (and the relativists alike), don't overreact.

Stay.

Help.

Enact change from within.

Don't allow those who would misuse truth to triumph.

Don't reject truth.

Reclaim truth.

To me this seems the most loving thing to do.

Let's make this the "love movement" ok?

on the stretch between the library and olson.

2009-02-10T22:09:00.002-05:00

I thought to myself...

though story-telling, enticing rhetoric, and flashy points are often good tools for engaging people in the word. It often masks the truth of what we are trying to relay, as if we need those tools to up the excitement factor of the actual content of our message.

"It is the dogma that is the drama--not beautiful phrases, nor comforting sentiments, nor vague aspiration to loving-kindness and uplift, nor the promise of something nice after death--but the terrifying assertion that the same God who made the world, lived in the world and passed through the grave and gate of death. Show that to the heathen, and they may not believe it; but at least they may realize that here is something that a man might be glad to believe." --Dorothy Sayers, Letters to a Diminished Church

Maybe I thought about this because Fergus MacDonald gave a great talk tonight about engaging scripture in a postmodern context. He did it mostly in a monotone voice and he definitely wasn't there to entertain. But i was drawn in. I was drawn in by truth, not by rhetoric. By scripture not by anecdotes. And by exposition, not entertainment.

Thanks Fergus.

Kluck, round two.

2009-02-06T15:07:00.003-05:00

Well, chapel today was a lot of repackaging of what was heard last night. Again, we were graced with his observations and reasons for loving the church.

The Church is important. Very important (so important, in fact, that I've capitalized it). And now we are aware that Mr. Kluck believes this. He loves expositional sermons. He loves structure. He loves worship. He loves authority. He loves the gospel. I don't dispute this. I love these things too.

BUT, if expositional sermons always focus on what was done for us on the cross and not at all on the implications of that as Christians who are called to act, to respond, then we have missed a huge part of the Gospel. (He was very ready to shrug off our duties as people to people outside the Church). If structures are not serving the correct purpose or have lost the meaning and value they were intended to posses, then they need reform and reevaluation, truth is to be valued far above authority and structure (luckily, they are usually manifested in those contexts)--God's inspired Word, the Truth, is our highest authority. If we are missing any part of that, it is our duty to root that out and reclaim it. The Gospel is the very foundation of who we are, how we think, and what we do, therefore it is to be protected above all else. This means that distortions of the Gospel, most specifically within the emergent church must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

While that is being done, in part, by Mr. Kluck, there is another aspect of protecting the Gospel that he, among many others (often including myself), have failed to do. Knowing that we are depraved, acknowledging that we're prone to error, wouldn't it be prudent to utilize the critique (whether appropriately conducted or not) of the emergent church, to do a little self reflection and analysis--to recognize the parts of the Gospel that as fallen people we have forgotten to remember? Perhaps a little humility from both sides? There is no doubt in my mind that much of the action and stance (or intentional lack thereof) of what has become the increasingly loathed or loved emergent church is some good (or distorted good) pursued in the wrong way, and in the wrong context. I just think it would serve the purpose of unity and truth to find those similarities and work to flesh out where we have both gone wrong, because no doubt there is incorrect orthodoxy and orthopraxy on both sides.

Rebellion.

2009-02-06T01:27:00.007-05:00

Tonight I attended a special seminar that Taylor offered by a guy named Ted Kluck. He is one of the Co-Authors of "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys That Should Be". I attended, expecting something phenomenal, and I was sorely disappointed. I wasn't dissatisfied with everything, but his knowledge seemed to be somewhat lacking for someone who wrote a book on the subject. I was disturbed all the more by his statement that "after writing the book he was done with the emergent church."

There are a vast array of reasons I was less than excited by his presentation, but the biggest one has to do with a very evident contradiction in his critique of the emergent church and the way he goes about reacting to it. One of the 9 or 10 things he heralded as "observations" (which were, in most cases, true enough) was that the emergent Church has a distinctly rebellious undertone, that this rebellious ethic is sexy (which is by the way, such a sexy word to use to use when critiquing this movement because of the obvious unrest the word causes in the mind of conservative evangelicals).

He laid the claim that the members of the emergent church are generally those who are rebelling against problems in churches and the structures of organized religion (valid, in many cases). He did mention (briefly) that much of what they are rebelling against is a deficiency that can be seen in the way we (as evangelical churches) do or do not engage in culture. However, he did not spend much time on that really, and focused for the most part on the distinctives of the emergent church: savvy marketing (which does not seem to be bad to me, unless it is an end in itself), "saving the world" arrogance, seeker friendly megaplexes, heavy-handed left sided theology (as if the only good Christians are right wingers), etc.

All this to say, besides presenting what seemed to a quintessential example of a "straw man" argument against the emergent church, he also fell prey (in this presentation) to the very thing he was speaking against. With all the talk of rebelling against something being such a bad idea, he sure did his fair share. It seems logically inconsistent for him to be so heavily anti-rebellion, when, in fact, he is doing the same thing. Instead of responding to logical inconsistencies, postmodern relative mindsets, and widespread theological misconstruction, he seemed to slam the Emergent church at its weakest points, without giving much thought to the strengths in the things that motivated the emergent church to act (whether they did that correctly or not).

Just like the emergent church would have done a much greater service to the cause of Christ if they had responded and reclaimed the things they saw as problematic in the church instead of rebelled, so to could Mr. Kluck have done a greater service to the cause of unity in the body if he had responded to the things he saw, reclaiming those ideas of peace and reconciliation (which are fundamental to scripture) instead of rebelled. I am not saying that he should have said that the Emergent church is "ok," but at least given value where value is due. Perhaps by bringing up the very valuable critique that the Emergent church has put forward, and responding to their methods for dealing with that critique.

I am not emergent either, but I do think that the emergent church has emerged (if you will), with some hugely important ideas that the evangelical church has left behind, but often have wrenched them out of context. There are many truths that they have brought back into the light that, if put in the correct context (of the historical doctrine, dogma, and theology) could be that much more powerful in extending our hand to those who are sick, hungry, thirsty, shirtless, and searching.

And side note: He was very much Mr. Reformed, and thats fine, however, we must remember that in order to be a "reformed" evangelical, a reformation had to happen (reform and rebellion seem to be similar things, one with a less unfortunate linguistic implications than the other, but both include recognizing a problem and working against it). Interestingly enough, there were many things that the reformers got wrong that we have been working towards fixing today. But that requires conversation and intelligent critique, not rebellion against a whole cause, but instead responses to specific ideas within a cause. Often that's MANY responses, and sometimes only a few. Either way, we must be willing to enter into conversation about this. We must be willing to see even the beauty in retrieving the often lost ideas of peace and social justice, while still maintaining that we must be adamant about placing them in the correct context--the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A funny side note: I typed this whole thing, spelling "emergent" as "emmergent". Perhaps I am now tipping my hand, showing you my lack of book knowledge on this subject. However, I, as most, can observe, and this was one facet of my observation this evening.

A clarifying side note: I am not rebelling against Mr. Kluck, merely critiquing the points that I thought could use some help. I do think that he is doing a valuable thing in reacting, i just don't think he is doing it in the correct manner/that tonight he did it in the correct manner.

We'll see him again in chapel tomorrow. Topic: valuing church authority. Right on. But i value truth more, i think. Sometimes, historically, churches, and church authority have gotten it wrong. Thank goodness there were people to call us out on it. Thank goodness the emergent church is calling us out. And thank goodness we don't have to eat up their methods or agree 100% with one side. Thank goodness its not an either/or.

Commit Already.

2009-02-03T13:51:00.005-05:00

Today i was hunched over, running across the street towards the student union, when i looked up and saw a car about to hit me. So he slowed down, then i motioned for him to go, then he waited so i started to go, but he started to go just as soon as i did. We both were a bit indecisive, i suppose.

I was less frustrated by the fact that he almost hit me than by the little piece of paper in the corner of his windshield. A bumper sticker. Besides the painfully obvious fact that the sticky rectangular self-advertisement was not even on the bumper, there was also the little annoying (ooh, shooting myself in the foot if you've ever read my post about annoyance) fact that is was not, in any way, attached to the car. I mean, really, you buy a bumper sticker because you believe in a cause, but if you are so uncertain about whether or not you will believe in the cause you are advertising via your vehicle, why buy it in the first place? Perhaps bumper stickers just annoy me all together because the essential purpose of a bumper sticker is more of a self monologue than a conversation. If you believe in Jesus, or Obama, or pre-trib rapture, please don't tell me with your car. I have no way to respond, no way to ask questions, no way to tell if recently the car came under new ownership and is thus entirely misrepresenting the person who now occupies the driver's seat.

Interestingly enough, it is equally bothersome to me when a bumpersticker is permanently attached to a vehicle as it is if it just sits in the window, waiting to be removed. The former instance seems to imply a self presentation tactic in which others must accept what you see to be true of yourself, driving, life, God, etc, and leaves no room for humility. But on the other hand, if you can't even commit to putting a bumpersticker in your window, then how can you even commit to an idea at all? Perhaps the temporary bumpersticker user attempts to remedy the prideful aspect of the bumpersticker by showing that their beliefs could be changed as quickly as a hand could remove a slip of paper from the dashboard, as long as someone would present a good case. Eh.

OR MAYBE, the whole point of a bumper sticker and its permanent nature is to show that there are some things that are and will always be true of you and the way you see the world (what a silly way to show this). Therefore, the whole idea of just placing a bumper sticker in your window to be taken out at a moments notice is self-defeating. Using something permanent in a transient manner. Good idea, it just doesn't work, and it gives way less credibility to whatever the idea is that your are trying to purport.

All this to say, if you have a bumper sticker, you better be REAL ready to defend and live by the words or phrase that sit on your bumper permanently. And if you have a bumper sticker sitting, unattached to the car, maybe you should consider why you can't bring yourself to adhere it to the car in such a way that if you were to attempt to remove it, loads of forrest green paint would be removed with it.

Just a thought i had when i almost got hit by the most indecisive (in terms of driving AND ideas) person in history. (hyperbole)

What an odd way to re-enter the blog community. With talk of bumperstickers.

silly really.

as a follow-up.

2008-12-23T18:32:00.002-05:00

Merry Christmas Taylor University.

As a little gift to TU this winter, Kevin Diller has decided to join the Philosophy department. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come, for instance, becoming our own department and getting further funding to grace ourselves with more people of the caliber of Mr. Diller and the current profs.

I hope so.

I don't want to be in the BICEP department anymore. I don't even have those really.

Lunch Today.

2008-12-05T13:18:00.002-05:00

Princeton, St. Andrews, Notre Dame.

Taylor University.

Yes, Taylor may become affiliated with these prestigious institutions via a new professor of Philosophy (potentially), Kevin Diller.

Today five philosophy students ate lunch with him and I think it is a consensus that we want him here. Now. He is a terrific conversationalist as well as a man highly interested in truth. Also, he vocalized his man crush on Alvin Plantinga (a personal friend of his) early on in the meal, which solidified our certainty. He must come to Taylor.

Sorry for all the undeveloped thoughts but...

2008-12-03T01:14:00.005-05:00

I like it when my plans get changed. It makes me aware of two things:

1. I have the ability to choose. I am not a puppet on string. But coupled with that:

2. God is still in control.

Maybe someday I'll flesh out why I am not a Calvinist.

And perhaps I'll write an essay, hopefully a more influential essay than C.S. Lewis's "Why I am not a Pacifist"...but instead "Why I am not a Calvinist."

But really, great conversations about this lately. Edifying conversations, which is hard to achieve with such "hot" topics in evangelical circles.

All i want to do is write about this right now...but i need to sleep. Suffice it to say, there is just a whole lot more mystery involved in this than the Calvinist position, as I see it, seems to allow. Also, i cannot seem to figure out why God would give us the illusion of choice, if we really cannot resist His grace, and if we really cannot choose something that is not His desire.

Obviously if you are a Calvinist you have a lot to say to that. I just wrote two sentences about it, so please don't think that is the entirety, majority, or weight of my thoughts on the subject. I would love to talk about it with you. It fascinates me. It is a secondary issue, but really, it says a lot about one's view of God. Which is, to me, the more important discussion.

I am very wary...

2008-11-05T00:16:00.000-05:00

...of rhetoric.

Curly Hair. I have it.

2008-11-03T20:53:00.005-05:00

I straightened my hair for Halloween. [my last minute costume was an impersonation of a girl on my wing who...yes...has straight hair]

I hadn't straightened my hair this year at school, or last year for that matter. Before each time I do it, I get excited, thinking that I'll probably end up loving it [like i did freshman year of high school] and then decide to take an hour out of a couple mornings a week to do the straightening deed.

NOPE.

hate it.

This is not because I don't like how it looks, or because I love how my curly hair looks. Its because I'm constantly AWARE of how it looks.

This seems silly, or trivial, but I think i finally put my finger on why I love everything to be natural (including my crazy curly hair). When my hair is straight, all I can think about is myself. I have this weird self awareness that makes me think about what my hair looks like, what other people think about how my hair looks, if they think I'm trying to hard, if they would prefer if i never had it curly again, if they would prefer if i had it straight. Every conversation centers around my hair. Everyone wants to tell me it looks great or that they like my hair either way. And then i realize...

I DON'T CARE.

And yet, I'm always reminded of it. All that this drastic change does is make me focus on me. But not really me, just an aspect of me.

Yes, maybe this is ridiculous, I'm talking about hair. But really, its something a LOT bigger. It really deals with a mindset:

When my hair is straight, i think about me.

When my hair is curly, i can be me, who thinks about a lot more than just me.

[not to say that i am not, essentially, myself when my hair is straight. However, if i wish to define myself as someone who can think of more than just how others perceive me, then i guess i really am not my essential self when my hair is straight]

ergo, i am, essentially, not myself when my hair is straight.

end of story.

I lied.

2008-10-30T12:24:00.002-04:00

Maybe it was because it was 2 in the morning and lately i've been addicted to early bedtimes, or maybe i just enjoy tricking people...but the fact is, I lied to you.

In fact, the song that has been stuck in my head for the past week is not "Jesus Paid it All" (thought it was last night...so it wasn't ENTIRELY a lie), but actually it is "In Christ Alone." Similar themes? yes. Same song? no. I think my mind didn't grasp that last night....

In Christ alone my hope is found;
He is my light, my strength, my song;
This cornerstone, this solid ground,
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My comforter, my all in all—
Here in the love of Christ I stand.

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.

There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me;
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home—
Here in the pow'r of Christ I'll stand.

It is simply not a coincidence...

2008-10-30T01:51:00.003-04:00

that EVERY day for that last week the song "Jesus Paid It All" has:

a. come up, unexpectedly, in conversation.

b. been increasingly relevant to any and every topic (which makes sense, i suppose).

c. been stuck in my head.

I hear the Savior say,“Thy strength indeed is small;

Child of weakness, watch and pray, Find in Me thine all in all.”

Jesus paid it all, All to Him I owe;

Sin had left a crimson stain,He washed it white as snow.

Lord, Now indeed I find, thy power and thine alone

can change the Leper's spots, and melt this heart of stone.

Jesus paid it all, All to Him I owe;

Sin had left a crimson stain, He washed it white as snow.

And when, before the throne, I stand in Him complete;

Jesus died, my soul to save, my lips shall still repeat.

Oh Praise the One who paid my debt, and raised this life up from the dead.

beautiful.

Old Earth Creationism.

2008-10-29T12:41:00.003-04:00

Annie Dimond

Dr. Guebert

Geology MW 2

29 October 2008

The Decision that Only Indirectly Matters to Me

One thing must be stated before I begin this essay and reason in favor of one explanation of creation over another: this argument, as I see it, only indirectly concerns to me. I really have no personal interest in the debate besides the realm of possibility that a non-christian hinges his faith decision on this matter of creation. Other than that, there are two inhibitors in my care for and/or attention to this matter of the manner of creation. First, the fact that there is no way to ascertain direct proof, scientifically, Biblically, or otherwise, to solidify either of the main claims, I feel that we are caught up in a, many times, needless debate, primarily when it divides or causes hostility between and within the body of Christ. Secondly, it is enough for me to know that God did it, that He not only set it all in motion, but is sticking around and is in utter control of it. To me, the “why” is much more fascinating that the “how.” But, I’m an idealistic philosophy major, so perhaps that somewhat explains my bent towards cutting out the realistic application of the absolute truth that God did, in fact, create the world and the orders contained within it. (Not that I should allow my indifference to become an excuse for ignorance in the subject matter.) I suppose what I really mean is that I consider the fleshing out of how God created the world to be a secondary issue, one not to be confused, however, with the fact that God did, undoubtedly, create it, which is indisputably, in my mind, primary in it most strong sense.

As I previously stated, there is no doubt in my mind, due to the order and beauty present in this world, that God created it. There is uncertainty, probably because of my conservative, Presbyterian upbringing, surrounding the “how” of creation. I’ve been taught my whole life that creation is a literal 24-hour, 6 day process--condemning all who would adhere to this “faulty” theory that rests on little more than equally faulty carbon dating. It is made to sound like anyone who does not agree with their “how” is denying the “what,” denying God’s power and presence in the act of creation. Well, as one who currently adheres to the centrist view, resting on the idea of old earth creation, I cannot believe and do not believe that denial of the less scientific view makes me somehow less holy. Mostly because I know that my opinion in this matter really changes nothing about how I live out my life in Christ.

It is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin asserting that just because an atheist may have made us aware as to the age of the earth, we must automatically reject it. Why do we have to be so prideful? Are atheists not able to discover God’s natural processes; is this not a part of General Revelation? Should we reject all kinds of other natural findings merely because they weren’t discovered within the evangelical community? I believe that a good Christian can adhere to the Old earth creation view, without believing that God had to use this process. This may, in fact, be the main difference between theistic scientists and their atheistic counterparts. Christians can believe that God used these processes in his ordering, while atheists believe that somehow this order created itself. We do not say that God needed millions of year, but if he used them, does that in any way diminish the amazing work of a creation ex nihilo? And if we are to use this same line of reasoning, I suppose He didn’t need to send his Son either, but He did, and praise Him for that. In the same way, we can praise God whether he created the earth over millions of years or millions of seconds.

Perhaps if those in the Evangelical community have such a problem taking evidence and research from those outside the faith, they must be proactive in discovering these things for themselves instead of waiting on other people’s research. We don’t need to be a community constantly reconciling what we believe with scientific study. We need to be a community convinced of what we believe, allowing science to only add to and solidify our faith, not divide and detract from it.

Love my enemies.

2008-10-06T00:30:00.004-04:00

I'm pretty sure that I'm not sure (yes, figure that out) how I ever thought it was ok to be annoyed with people.

I'm also relatively positive that being annoyed has absolutely nothing to do with loving other people, since the very act of being annoyed is only seeing others' actions in relation to myself.

I'm also quite positive that while I was an enemy of God, Christ died for me.

So remind me why I thought it was ok for me to be annoyed when someone uses too many hand gestures in conversation, or idiosyncratic, ridiculous vocabulary, when God sent his Son so that he could reconcile himself to me, a person that falls way short of His perfection, in more ways than just conversational tendencies? and oh yea, even the guy that was hammering nails through the hands of Jesus, He died for him too?

I'm not sure where I got the notion that annoyance is an appropriate response, but I'm darn positive that it isn't, ever, not if I'm called to love even those people who hate me, or intentionally hurt me. Too bad its hard for me to love those people who aren't even trying to hurt me, but merely infringe upon my definition of pleasant. I have a long way to go I think.

3 strikes...

2008-10-01T22:53:00.003-04:00

So today in geology (strike number one..blech i hate rocks) on our campus walking tour, i got stung by a bee (strike number two). I realized i have never been stung by a bee before, and i was telling this fact to Trevor, who was (ironically) stung by that same bee about 4 seconds before. As we commiserated together (as my teacher spoke about igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks), my teacher came around the tree and said "please stop talking and listen," (strike number three), to which i whimpered, "i just got stung by a bee."

End of story.

I wish three strikes meant i was out of geology, unfortunately it just means i've probably fallen out of my prof's good graces. Great.

Text MESSages.

2008-09-25T00:49:00.005-04:00

I am reminded of the movie "Meet me in St. Louis" as I endeavor to write the first line of this post (which is not this one, but the one under this paragraph). There is a line where Rose says to her father: "I hate, loathe, despise, and abominate money," to which her father replies, "you also spend it." And with that:

I hate, loathe, despise, and abominate text messages. (and facebook and twitter, for that matter) To which one may reply, "you also use them." Right, right, right. As with the movie, most people laugh that conversation off with a light-hearted, "he's got her there." But does he? To the casual viewer, Rose is dubbed a fool, as if her father's argument had stumped her, as if she had never thought about the practicality of money before, as if, somehow, once again, the realist had brought the idealist back to earth. To this i would say, "not so."

Rose wasn't an idiot. She spent money. She knew she spent money. She never proposed that money or capitalism or credit cards (did they have those in 1904?! :)) be done away with. She simply spoke about her feelings towards money. Her father made the assumption that she had a problem with what people do with money, but what Rose really had a problem with was what money does to people. So too with little technological advances like text messaging.

The big problem has never been what people do with text messaging. I mean, I suppose people can employ it to use foul language, to gossip, or to degrade the english language by use of LOL and TTYL and the like, but this can be done in just about any medium. The real problem lies within the way technology uses people. The way that it can trick a person into thinking that text messaging is a quick, efficient way to transport thoughts--UNTIL it becomes a medium that envelops all of one's time. A medium that was intended to expedite communication has had the opposite effect, it has slowed down true conversation, real person-to-person interaction. In the words of Shane Hipps, "it had reverted into its opposite intention."

I have often laughed when people say that technology makes people dumber. (eg the calculator) However, if not the technology itself, our reliance on it, no matter what it is, probably degrades our intelligence more than just a bit. If we rely too heavily on something, if we use it because it is "rational," our thinking may become truly irrational. A quick way to alert someone of something (a text message)=rational. A way to spend a class period, the walk to class, your time in the library, your time at lunch, and on the walk back to your dorm (a text message "conversation")=irrational.

Rational: (In a text): Wanna meet at the union at 10?

Reply: yes, see you there. peace.

(In person): How was your day?

Reply: (Long answer that gives the ins and outs and dirty details of the day.)

Irrational: (In a text): Hey, how was your day?

Reply: It was so so, how was urs?

Reply: Purty good, so why was yours so so?

Reply: Just not the best, ya know?

Reply: yea i know. what are you up to?

Reply: (short answer that will easily be forgotten by the reader in ten minutes and if the reader sees their texting buddy later, will proceed to ask all the same questions that were answered via text conversation, because the "conversation" was not a conversation at all, it was an addiction to interaction and attention and nothing real was said)

All that to say, there is nothing wrong with being an idealist. Rose was, so you should be too. It doesn't mean you stop text messaging, but it does mean you become aware of what you can become if you let your attitude towards technology, or anything really, go unchecked.

Don't let yourself become a textMESSage. (ha. that was lame.)

Auditory Learners.

2008-09-23T16:10:00.005-04:00

I'm an auditory learner. Guess what that doesn't make me--a visual learner. This is not to say, however, i shouldn't stretch myself and grow in my ability to learn and understand via my eyes and the page, but is IS to say that what gives me the most understanding and comprehension is speech, spoken word. I like to read, really, I do. But, if i ever need to fully comprehend something, it would be best for me to talk it out, rather than go back over my notes. I process things verbally.

So why, then, has it never occurred to me (before 2 weeks ago) to read the Bible out loud? I become easily distracted when I sit and read (no matter what the material), but when i read things out loud, I am caused to focus on what I am saying, take in the words I am speaking. What a powerful time with God I am having, reading and speaking through the Psalms. And, how different from anything I've ever done, or from the classic "quiet time." I guess its not really "quiet," but I'm not sure how much I agree with the notion of a "quiet time" actually having to do with the presence or lack of sound.

I do know two things:

1. Though there is a presence of sound, it is sound that quiets my spirit, and therefore not noisy like everyday life. Not to mention, what a different kind of sound than what one is accustomed to hearing in the day to day.

2. For a person who lacks the ability to feel much emotion, or emote in general, the reading of the words of passionate Psalmists is a good practice. It gives me the correct context in which to feel, to be joyful, to mourn, to cry out in the presence of God, for and about things that actually matter, that actually should, and do require emotion.

Confessions.

2008-09-14T23:55:00.003-04:00

Don't lie, you got really excited when you read this title, you thought i was going to confess a thing or two to you. Well, no, but yes. Here it is: This whole sabbathing thing is working out AMAZINGLY for me. And, tonight, it has allowed me to do something that has alluded me quite a bit since i've been at school: leisurely reading. So, here i sit, having read only 2 chapters of The Confessions of St. Augustine, and I love my life. I kinda want to stay up all night and read it...too bad Greek is at 9.

Here are some nuggets. yum:

"You are matchless, O Lord. So our praise of you must rise above our humanity..."

-an amazing list of "oxymorons" which may be helpful if I ever write a thesis or dissertation about the necessity of contradiction.

"Let me die that I may not only die..."

"All things changeable flow from the spring of Your unchanging Being. In You live the eternal reasons of all the time bound things that cannot reason in themselves..."

"Who was the 'me' who lived in my mother's womb?"

"Nor does 'today' ever come to a close for you. Yet because of you each day does come to a close for us. The day finds its closing in you, for it has no way to end unless you uphold that ending..."

the end for now.

The Fourth Dimension

2008-09-12T13:38:00.005-04:00

Yes, its Friday night. Yes, I'm sitting in my room blogging. Yes, when you're older maybe you can aspire so such things as well. :)

So, every semester there seems to be a class that "keeps me going" as it were. This semester=C.S. Lewis and Wendell Berry. Great class. In general, it is a discussion class, but the first class (well, i guess it was the second, technically, but i slept through the first one...oops) he lectured on a Chapter of "The Weight of Glory" called "Transposition." I read this back in the day, like, Junior year of high school or something, so I'm not quite sure i haven't read it MANY more times since then. Terrific stuff.

The basic idea that Lewis addresses here is that of how "supernatural" things manifest themselves in the "natural" world. He begins with the seemingly striking parallel between speaking in tongues and hysteria, between the the acts that comprise justice versus revenge, the consummation of conjugal love versus that of biological lust. It seems that it is impossible to separate those things that we consider "higher" from those which seem base, or natural.

Lewis discusses these dichotomies by making a parallel: "If you are to translate from a language which has a large vocabulary into a language that has a small vocabulary, then you must be allowed to use several words in more than one sense...We are all quite familiar with this kind of transposition or adaptation from a richer to a poorer medium. The most familiar example of all is the art of drawing. The problem here is to represent a three dimensional world on a flat sheet of paper. The solution is perspective, and perspective means we must give more than one value to a two-dimensional shape. Thus in a drawing of a cube, we use an acute angle to represent what is a right angle in the real world. But elsewhere an acute angle on the paper may represent what was already an acute angle in the real world..."

The interesting thing about this picture is, though, that if one were not accustomed to the three dimensional world, the cube would be nothing but two dimensional lines, with no way to be understood outside of the two dimensional world. What is happening in the lower medium can only be understood if we know the higher medium. Therefore, the skeptics conclusion that the "so called spiritual" is really only a derivative of the natural world is a conclusion that is to be expected from one who is only in touch with the lower medium. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Even those who can spiritually discern a higher dimension are limited to natural words. We can only talk about this in terms that exist within the fourth dimension. And, those who have not experienced this fourth dimension can only explain things in terms of the third dimension. It seems as if we are conversing about the same things, however in one case the language is a limitation, and in the other the language is a representation.

Perhaps, Hell is being obsessed with our own dimension, as if there is nothing more, as if those who strive for more are seemingly striving for something less, when all those wrapped up in this dimension can see is a cross-section of that which exists in the fourth dimension.

It is not that this fourth dimension is a dream, a flimsy thought, a see-through, phantasmal mirage that with the blowing of a slight breeze might vanish into obscurity, no. "Our natural experiences are only like the drawing, like pencilled lines on flat paper. If they vanish in the risen life, they will vanish only as pencil lines vanish from the real landscape, not as a candle flame that is put out but as a candle flame which becomes invisible because someone has pulled the blind, thrown open the shutters, and let in the blaze of the risen sun."

"If flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, that is not because they are too solid, too gross, too distinct, too illustrious with being. They are too flimsy, too transitory, too phantasmal."

Anyway, it has just become more clear to me, after reading this chapter, that this was one of those ideas that the writer, Lewis, was obsessed with for his whole life. It permeated most of his writings. The whole idea of "The Great Divorce" rests on it. In the Silver Chair the kids try to explain the overworld to those in the underworld (with little success). In Til We Have Faces, three dimensional speech (yea, what a cool concept) will not provide the necessary words for the utterances she wishes to speak, things that may be too definite for language. In Perelandra there is as constant relation between the higher and lower dimensions and when it is at one point being described to Ransom (a man), a higher being tells him that there is "no holding place in his mind for this." And the list goes on...

Also, it deepens my respect for fiction. Stories, abstraction, may, in fact be one of the only ways that this can become clearer to us, in describing things that could be labeled "out of this world," we may get a picture of that which is existing in a higher dimension, within this world.

Sorry to be a bore, but how exciting is it to think that this fourth dimension may, indeed, require different senses to sense things that, when on this earth, were pitifully sensed with the senses which are only suited to perceive that which exists in the third dimension.

Recommended reading: Many Dimensions by Charles Williams, A Wrinkle in Time (after all, just like we can fold two dimensional paper to make points touch, could not something in the fourth dimension fold our three dimensional time so that points could touch?), Flatland by Edmond A. Abott (I have not read this.), The Image in the Mirror by Dorothy Sayers (haven't read this one either)

Alright, i suppose thats plenty for a friday night.

I'm not so talented..

2008-09-04T01:34:00.003-04:00

Especially in the area of long distance relationships. Right now this is painfully obvious in the areas of communication with:

-Family.

-St. Louis friends

-California friends

-Lithuania friends

-2nd East Olson friends (i mean, its a whole flight of stairs above me and a little to the right.)

-This blog.

It's as if I'm just now realizing that my ability to blog has returned. Because i was away for so long, i got out of thinking in relation to or with the facility to interact with the blogosphere.

Just like when an old friend returns home or becomes available for human to human interaction after a long absence, sometimes you forget that it is possible to be physically present with them, since you had so long been unable to do so. This is where i am with blogging right now:

Physically, quite able to interact with the keyboard, but living life as if i cannot. The typing of these words honestly feels altogether very awkward, as if there is an uncomfortable silence between old friends as both ponder the fact that one or both has had more than a few experiences in their time apart, and neither is at all sure where to begin.

So really, i am not sure where to begin. And may never do so. The facts and experiences may just have to work themselves out as i continue to live life, changed and yet the same. Experienced and waiting. Different, and thus wholly unable to be what i was before, yet entirely dumbfounded and mute when it comes to actually relaying and therefore affirming the experiences. I suppose it will be my actions and not my words that must attest. There is no need to begin, only to continue. Perhaps these things become visible over time, one must hope, or else life would be spent explaining one's self and actions away.

All this to say, I'm not going to pick up where i left off. I'm going to continue, starting now.

Life Updates from Branson, MO.

2008-08-09T16:16:00.002-04:00

Here I sit, in Panera, in Branson, in Missouri. I'm, bodily, an hour and a half away from Kamp, I'm, mentally, sitting in my cabin with 12 girls, each with a heart wrenching story. I don't have time now to write about what the last month has meant to me, suffice it to say, transitioning from working with 12 inner city 15-year old girls for a week at a time, to ministering to and loving 40 middle to upper class 18-20 year old girls for a whole year is going to be one heck of a change. I'm not ready, not at all.

HOWEVER. Excited, i am. Assured that my upcoming duties will be more in line with the gifts I've been given, i am. Wishing i had even a day in between, i am. Entirely aware that when I am weak He is strong, i am. Blessed and challenged by the experience that i am getting ready to finish up, i am. Thankful for the friends i have made in the last couple weeks, i am. Overjoyed that i will be able to eat something healthy and good for my body for a change, i am. Confident that He will equip me for all that I have to quickly adjust to, i am.

sure that this is way too short of a post considering all i have experienced, i am.

I am...

2008-07-11T13:26:00.003-04:00

a planner.

If you don't believe me, check this: I have the next 3 summers pretty well planned out--including the hairstyle of the summer after my junior year. I will have dreads, and Alexandra will have a shaved head as we take our month long trek through Europe. You think I'm kidding, but I'm not. I know my class schedule for not just the fall, but also the spring, and the summer of 2009. (even though, as a philosophy major, its not like i have to cram hours in). I have, in my head, and idealized version of what is going to be occurring in the year to come, and even farther on into my life.

Its not that I don't trust God to take care of it, but rather that I enjoy planning. It gives me something to be excited about, something to look forward to. However, that looking forward almost inevitably turns into idealizing, turning my future into something worthy of a best selling autobiography. This doesn't happen on purpose, of course, but really, who plans a difficult future for themselves? Not I.

The Lord knows me. So, as I think back to the beginning of the summer when i was plagued with sickness and not allowed to go to Kids Across America Staff Training, I realize what the Lord was shielding me from. NOT from Staff Training, mind you, but, from myself, and my planning, idealizing ways. You see, a just a couple days ago i started thinking about Kamp, there has really not been an opportunity to do so until now, nor would there be anything of substance to think about. Since I missed staff training, I am going in somewhat blind to this whole affair. I have NO idea what to expect.

Will I be with a cabin of girls who know each other or will they be simply grouped by age? Will I be expected to have serious basketball skills or just sit back and watch them play? Will I have a co-counselor in my cabin or no? Are the themed parties one every week or a couple a week? Will I build life long relationships with my staff or mainly with the campers, or both? What will my typical day entail, any rest, no? Am i crazy and loud enough to contribute, or will I be a quieter type in this atmosphere? What is this atmosphere?

I don't know. And I don't know about you, but when I don't know something, I don't like to think about it. Thus, my thoughts on camp have been few and far between. All I can think is, Lord, I have absolutely no idea what I am getting myself into, so prepare my heart for whatever happens.

Had I not been forced to go home instead of attend the beginning of the summer training, my heart could not possibly be where it is right now--ready and waiting. Right where it needs to be. The Lord is doing great things.

Fireworks...

2008-07-05T00:51:00.003-04:00

just don't do it for me. My eyes were, instead, unwaveringly brought back to the beautiful, parchment papery sliver of the moon. Unassuming, especially amidst the fireworks, yet demanding an attention, a reverence and awe. There is much more quiet beauty and mystery involved with the moon, less smoke, less earsplitting noise. I prefer the moon to fireworks.

No thanks on the fireworks front.

Also, you know something is wrong when your little sister has no idea what independence day is. Or, when asked, can't produce an answer for what we may actually be shooting off fireworks to commemorate on the fourth of july (independence day, as some, apparently not her, call it).

i expect letters.

2008-07-01T15:25:00.003-04:00

KAA 3

Annie Dimond

Rt. 1 Box 1288

Golden, MO 65658

That is my address at Kamp. Really people, hopefully you can muster up a postcard or something. Encouragement will inevitably be necessary. Care packages are also appreciated :) (ahem, mom)

Anyway, i leave this thursday morning. Gracie and i will drive 17 hours to colorado. I'll spend the fourth with the grandparents and grace and then i'll leave early on the fifth and make the rest of the journey to st. louis all by my lonesome. Phone calls are also greatly appreciated during my july 5 drive. I'l be in st. louis from late on the 5th until july 12, when i will be heading to Kankakuk, Kids Across America for a solid month. I'm so excited. Remember to keep me in your prayers as i minister and am ministered to by these 15-18 year olds (weird that i'm 19). Love you all, and I may blog a few more times before Kamp and on my 24's (breaks) at Kamp.

Love to all. California people, goodbye. St. Louis people, see you in a couple days. Taylor people, see you in a little over a month!

a prayer when considering that converstion

2008-06-27T04:48:00.004-04:00

As a little addendum to my last post, perhaps John Donne's Holy Sonnet #14 should be our prayer when attemting to discern what our particular conversation would look like, and also in the process of ridding ourselves of ourselves.

Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

that conversation.

2008-06-26T04:51:00.004-04:00

Finally I'm sitting down to write a blog that has been a long time coming. Perhaps it is the nature of this post that makes it a difficult one to write, or perhaps i just haven't had the itch to write at all for a while. Either way, the topic is Heaven, or Hell, or, rather, the state of our soul now as it sheds light on eternity.

I just read "The Great Divorce" again. I plan to make it a yearly ritual. Why not, right? Its 146 of the easiest, story-like reading I've ever done. (OK, perhaps the Hardy boys were a bit easier to read). Not only its simplicity, but its poignancy makes it a little book i will not soon forget, but will relentlessly recommend.

I am not in the summarizing mood, so i will let you read what that back of the book says to entice you to read what lies within:

In The Great Divorce C.S. Lewis again employs his formidable talent for fable and allegory. The writer, in a dream, boards a bus on a drizzly afternoon and embarks on an incredible voyage thought Heaven and Hell. He meets a host of supernatural beings far removed from his expectations and comes to significant realizations about the ultimate consequences of everyday behavior...

The focus of the book is on the one-on-one conversations that are had between his bus mates and the supernatural beings. Each of the voyagers has some particular attitude, question, or opinion that the supernatural being is trying help rid them of.

In the case of one man, an artist, he wishes to know if he can paint in heaven, and if so, how soon he can start. He cannot let go of the talent, the way he found worth, even happiness, on earth. After a couple pages of fleshing out the man's real problem, the supernatural being answers, "It was all a snare. Paint was necessary down there, but it is also a dangerous stimulant. Every poet and musician and artist, but for Grace, is drawn away from love of the thing he tells, to love of the telling till, down in Deep Hell, they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him. For it doesn't stop at being interested in paint, you know. They sink lower--become interested in their own personalities and then in nothing but their own reputations."

In the case of another man, a theologian, he is convinced of his relevant" ideas which are in line with the "spirit of the age," fashionable theology. He meets a supernatural being who used to be a colleague of his. Upon the being's request that he come with him deeper into Heaven, the man asks for a guarantee that he will be able to find a "wider sphere of usefulness" wherever the being takes him. He is given the answer, "No, I can promise you none of these things. No sphere of usefulness: you are not needed there at all. No scope for your talents: only forgiveness for having perverted them. No atmosphere of inquiry, for I will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you shall see the face of God...hitherto you have experienced truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your thirst shall be quenched."

Unfortunately, in both situations, the eyes of the men were not opened. Their ideas about art and truth meant more to them than the reason they became interested in them in the first place, the God from whom all beauty and truth emanates. In so deciding, the men were caught in what Lewis called the "subtlest of snares" (examples include: a lover of books who, with all his first editions and signed copies had lost the power to read them or an organizer of charities that had lost all love for the poor)

There is, however, another kind of conversation that occurs later in the book. This one includes a man with a lizard on his shoulder. The lizard whispers things into his ear, consumes his attention. When a supernatural being asks if he can kill the pest (for it is the only way to be rid of him), there are a few pages of banter as the being convinces the man that the only way the man will be free is if he is given permission to kill the lizard, which may, in fact, end up killing the man. However, the man ends up convinced that "it would be better to be dead than to live with this creature." So, the being kills the lizard. Immediately not only the man, but the lizard also, are transformed. The lizard became a stallion and the man rode off into the high country with it.

I probably just wrote out about half the book for you, really its short. I've been intrigued by these stories in the past, by each persons journey, faith, stupidity, etc, but as much as I've enjoyed reading it or been challenged by each or certain conversations, none of the stories fit me exactly, duh.

So, I was thinking that if I could, if you could, get to a place where we can identify the kind of conversation we would have, then it would no longer be our conversation. I don't really know how clear that is, but I just mean that if i can figure out the questions i would ask, the earthly things (even good things like love, happiness, beauty) i would hold onto, or the personal aims that i wish to see fulfilled above the goals that God has for my life, then, and only then, can i begin to look for those answers, let go of those earthly ideas, and reorient my goals.

It is all about taking our focus off of ourselves so that we can become ourselves. It starts with pinpointing a conversation that we are already having, but just may not know it, for "this moment contains all moments". For each of us, what is that conversation?

This is part of the song that breaks forth after the lizard is transformed into a horse:
Overcome us that, so overcome, we may be ourselves: we desire the beginning of your reign as we desire dawn and dew, wetness at the birth of light.

Alexandra Comes to Visit.

2008-06-15T23:49:00.010-04:00

Well, my darling, fountain hopping, SIP partnering, parking lot sleeping, adventure companioning, California visiting, conversation having, future flatmate, friend Alexandra Jane just left me. She was here for 10 days. These were ten of the most active days I have had in a very, very long time. It was magnificent. Besides daily walks and challenging ourselves to not drive whenever we were able (gas is freaking $4.65), we biked 15 hilly miles to the beach on bikes that were too big for us one day, which now seems like nothing in comparison to our greatest feat--climbing half dome in Yosemite. Check out the photos from the trip, and then stay tuned for my thoughts on it, unless the pictures are enough, in which case, don't stay tuned.

Its hard not to have a lot of thoughts when you are in the beauty of God's creation. So I am going to limit myself to three major points. Perhaps I'll allow myself more later.

1. Part of the reason thought life is abundant in the mountains, on the beach, or in any part of nature in general, is that nature provides us (i've anthropomorphized nature, but I really mean that it is provided by the Provider, in the Form of nature) with an infinite amount of metaphors. Its interesting for me to think about the sheer number of comparisons that I drew as I looked at the river flowing through our campsite, the trail that wound endlessly on, the journey back down the mountain, the vast landscape from the top as compared to the enclosed sections of the trail. The list goes on. I think metaphors are important, in fact, Jesus himself used the parable of the Sower, to lay out how it is that the Gospel has been, and will be received. Comparing an element of the natural process with a personal process. I don't think it is a coincidence that there are are numerous parts of nature that, when abstracted, resonate quite poignantly with the lives of those who will take time to reflect.

2. A little anecdote: Alex and I were trying to find the bathrooms at our campsite one night, and then we looked up. We no longer cared whether or not our teeth were brushed for bed, but rather that we took time to capture beauty of the stars and night sky in that moment (see night picture above). As we sat down on the ground to figure out the appropriate shutter speed and how to simulate a tripod in a moment's notice, i just got excited. We sat there for a while, as the camera began to collect all of the light possible so that it could make a picture in which stars and trees were discernable. In the middle of one of the pictures, a car drove past, making a lot of noise, and as it did that I got really frustrated, as if the unnatural sound were somehow going to mess with the natural beauty of the picture. This, of course, was not the case.

Immediately after this little incident, my mind wandered to a recent passage in the book I am reading by Neil Postman, "Amusing Ourselves to Death." In the section that came to mind, Neil is discussing photography and telegraphy and the ways in which they give us a "psuedo-context." Of course, by the mere use of the prefix "psuedo," we might assume that Postman isn't neccesarily pleased by the presence of these mediums--or rather, that he is critical of them (i suppose its a critics job to be critical). "But there is no such thing as a photograph taken out of context, for photograph does nto require one. In fact, the point of photography is to isolate images from conext so as to make them visible in a different way." This little sliver of this enormous chapter leavese me with mixed feelings. Feeling 1: Joy. I'm extatic that in my photograph, the context is taken away. You can't tell by looking at the photo that there are tons of tents all around, you can't hear the sound of the truck as its many cylinders create noise and sound pollution...all that the onlooker can see is the beauty of the night sky. Feeling 2: Dissatisfaction. The photograph doesn't do the night justice. Though the onlooker can see the beauty of the night sky, that is the only sensory experience that will connect them with it. There are no cicadas chirping, no sound of river rushing nearby, no smell of campfire, no cool night air, the entire experience, save the particular visual one, is lost.

This has given me plenty to think about concerning the role of certain artisitic mediums, their strengths and their weaknesses, and their truth value (assuming, as I do, that there is, in fact, a truth value).

3. Well, I planned on typing a third, but it IS father's day, so I will retire upstairs to where the family has congregated to watch a classic--Remember the Titans.

Until next time.

On Repeat.

2008-06-02T01:42:00.004-04:00

So, its weird. Lately, I haven't had any songs or melodies running round and round in my brain, but, i have had the quote from Mere Christianity playing over and over in my mind, countless times a day. At this point I have no apparent connection to make between it and the current goings on in my life, except the continual affirmation of its truth in daily living. So here it is, perhaps after I write it out, it will cease permanent residence in my day to day thoughts, sort of like the myth that if you listen to a song when it is stuck in your head, it will magically become uncatchy and thus depart. That's crap, but I'm gonna try it anyway.

"...It is dangerous to describe a man who tries very hard to keep the moral law as 'a man of high ideals,' because this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of his own and that the rest of us were not called to share it."

The Pants (revisited)

2008-06-01T05:14:00.010-04:00

I was alerted tonight at my first (and only) wedding i will be attending this summer, by one of my faithful (perhaps of 3) blog readers that i failed to revisit a anecdote I had shared and fulfill a promise I had delineated when I composed it. See March 2nd to read the story behind these pics. Aunt Steph, I apologize for the major blogger faux pas I committed by failing to follow through on this. But, better late than never, right? (probably what that boy thought about getting his pants back...better late than never.)

If you wish to see these pictures with captions, there is a facebook album devoted entirely to this story.

Hope you enjoy, Aunt Steph!

On the Road again.

2008-05-23T08:21:00.002-04:00

Well, here i go. In about 5 minutes I'm leaving for good ol' Kansas to be with the Grandparents for a bit in the RV. If you think of it, feel free to call me, in that i'll be driving for 8 hours with no companion and no music except what the radio (however spotty) will afford. I don't mind a little alone time though, which is great, because i'm ready to be home, and thus, ready to drive.

"You watch your Phrase-ology"

2008-05-22T01:13:00.002-04:00

First of all, 10 points to the first person to cite where the quote in my title is from.

However, what made me think of this, was a phrase i oddly heard used a few times today (not odd that i heard it used, more that i heard it numerous times:

"neck of the woods"

10 mas puntos (thats me beginning to implement my spanish speaking) to the person who can explain where the phrase came from. Now, lets be honest about this too, I mean, its easy to look it up, but does anyone REALLY know from whence it came?

Late Night Hotel Talks.

2008-05-21T01:41:00.003-04:00

So I'm living in a hotel right now because it seems to be the most sterile environment. Sterile is best since apparently I'm allergic to everything, literally, everything. I had my allergy tests today, and NONE of the allergens came back negative, meaning I'm a walking, talking allergic reaction waiting to happen.

My friend Alexandra Jane came to visit me tonight and we were planning to watch Finding Neverland, so we mosied on down to the front desk to pick up some treats for the feature film. An hour and a half later we made our way back to the room, too intrigued to even think about starting a movie.

As we attempted to buy our snackies, we met the front desk worker, TB. He said "uno momento, por favor" (which i thought was Spanish, but apparently the way he said it was Italian). We asked if he was from Italy, and he said, NO, he was from Egypt (that was the first time in this conversation that i felt like an idiot, he clearly looked Egyptian). Then he proceeded to ask about our education and how many languages we spoke. One, was, of course, our mutual answer to the question, though i sheepishly added my minimal but hopefully progressing knowledge of the Spanish language. He said, "that's poor." I agreed. I said that I hoped to someday be trilingual. To that he answered, "that's poor, I speak six." Turns out that Egyptian children learn three languages by the time they graduate high school. His next question was, "what is the greatest fault of humankind?" The way that the conversation was going, I thought I knew the answer--ignorance. Turns out I was right. We talked not as much about the failing US educations systems, but more the flourishing systems of Egypt, Germany, and Japan--countries who recently were devastated by war, but now take the 1-2-3 spots of education in the world. Where is the US? Number 9.

There were so many places in the conversation i wanted to agree with him, and a few in which i wanted to disagree. But first and foremost it just reinforced my dissatisfaction with American culture. You just don't need to have extensive knowledge of anything to make it in our society(overall attractiveness and rhetoric will take you long way). Hard work is severely diminished, and getting by with a passing grade is good enough. If you are in an Intro to Accounting class, and you know that if you pass it, just barely, you can make up your GPA in classes that you are "better" at. Isn't the point of class to learn and begin to understand those things that our minds previously failed to comprehend? I find myself falling into this trap all the time. For instance, my biology class. I hated it. Often, i would tell myself that it was the faulty system of Taylor that even put me in this class first semester, and thus it was my prerogative to shirk my responsibility to gain as must as was possible from it. What an attitude.

Perhaps our country, with all its advances, has begun to limit people. My school tested me in 8th grade, and told me what subjects would best suit me later on in life, what kind of job I should get. It said I should write, and read to become a teacher or a lawyer. But, I shouldn't attempt to do anything that required great attention to detail, like a surgeon. I shouldn't be a writer, but i could be a critic (which was an unfortunate thing to hear in and of itself). So, as an 8th grader, what do I begin to do with this newly acquired knowledge of my strengths and weaknesses? I began to make excuses. "well, i really don't have a math brain so to pay attention in Algebra II would be fruitless..." "well, i don't have a desire to ever think about the excretory system again, so i don't really care how i do on this project..." You'd think that perhaps this would be frowned upon, and perhaps it was, but I remember these excuses being made FOR people, by those who were there to teach, in high school.

Why do we not want to start mandatory language programs that will actually push people and not be simply elective courses in the first year a child enters school? It may put undue stress on the child...or something. Or the school doesn't want to do the work to find tremendous language teachers and begin to pay them too. Some schools have good programs, some don't. Here's my problem.

Its not so much with the lack of classes, as it is an IGNORANCE. Just like TB said, my lack of knowledge of other languages shows ignorance, but not just of languages, of cultures. After some thought, I also believe it to be pretty darn disrespectful. The majority of the world learns English. Most countries graduate high school seniors who could come here and live and speak fluently with in our culture (and probably with more grammar and syntax than most who grew up here). When they come here, they want to be able to communicate with us, why? because apparently they respect our culture (though i don't know why.) Most Americans, however, couldn't even begin to communicate with people of other-language speaking countries. Not only that, but also, they couldn't care less. We are being ignorant and disrespectful. We have failed to realize our place on this planet. We are not just the big powerhouse that can go in and fix people's failing governments and cultures. We have forgotten that most countries and cultures are infinitely (maybe that's a bit hyperbolic) older and more established than we are, and may have a few things to teach our baby country about its place in the world and in history. I don't think you can love someone unless you know them, and I, for one, do not know much about any other cultures. How can I expect to love and respect them? I can't, because i am ignorant.

(this was only the first 15 minutes of the conversation in which he went on to tell us stories of his life in the 19 countries and 49 states he has visited. wow. cool guy.)

P.S. the only reason I could have this conversation was because he spoke English. Without his knowledge of the language, we would have had a failing attempt at communication. My night would have been tragically less than it was had we not been able to hear his stories of his culture, education, vocation, and family. I want to be able to go to other cultures and hear more stories so that I may love and respect people who didn't grow up in a place like I did, people from whom I know I have so much to learn. I should probably start to learn now.

Urgent Care Centers.

2008-05-18T22:04:00.003-04:00

are inappropriately named.

Let's examine:

"Urgent"--Flat out lie. I could have died right there in the waiting room and they wouldn't have seen me for an hour. It almost happened.

"Care"--If any doctor EVER tries to tell you that the best way to deal with your asthma is to take 10 days of 3x a day prednisone with no taper--run the other direction (your lungs might not appreciate this, but your liver will).

And here we see that "urgent" and "care" may be the two least fitting words for this fine establishment.

Perhaps "lackadaisical disregard" or "apathetic nearsightedness". Anything, just NOT urgent care.

"How Am I Supposed to Breathe With No Air?"

2008-05-18T00:57:00.006-04:00

Maybe Jordin Sparks has asthma too?

[Chorus]
Tell me how I'm supposed to breathe with no air
Can't live, can't breathe with no air
It's how I feel whenever you ain't there
It's no air, no air
Got me out here in the water so deep
Tell me how you gon' be without me
If you ain't here, I just can't breathe
It's no air, no air

No air, air
No air, air
No air, air
No air, air

I walked, I ran, I jumped, I flew
Right off the ground to float to you
There's no gravity to hold me down for real
But somehow I'm still alive inside
You took my breath, but I survived
I don't know how, but I don't even care

My biggest problem with Jordin representing us asthmatics of the world, is that she seems to imply that its easy for those with no air to "walk, run, jump, and fly" as insinuated in the last paragraph.

No. Its not. In fact, i can barely get air as i lay here. How am I supposed to breathe with no air?

Mommy.

2008-05-11T17:40:00.018-04:00

Dear Mommy,
You are a mom. Here's proof.

Each one of us loves you.

Even in our silliest moments, we love you.

Here's the story:
In the beginning there was Lisa, a beautiful woman.

There was also a Chris, a studly man.

They fell in love.

A few years down the road, there was Annie.
(you celebrated your first official mothers day in May of 1989)

Next, there was a Clare Bear.

Then there was a little Lissie.

And last, a Gracie poo.

Since then, they have become friends. Sisters and friends.

All in all, you are a wonderful mother, and
we [] you.

Your Daughter,
Anne Marie.

Happy Mother's Day.

The Evangelical Manifesto.

2008-05-08T01:56:00.004-04:00

Yes, there is one now.

Read it.

I appreciate this. I have read it, and am encouraged by the direction that it takes. Its important to define terms, but its something we often forget in Christian circles, assuming that we all understand words like "santification" or "grace". This gives us a nice little definition of "evangelical." I'm sure we'll hear more about it in the coming months.

These are some of my favorite excerpts:
"Fifth, the Evangelical message, “good news” by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to ―the power of No,‖ especially in a day when ―Everything is permitted‖ and ―It is forbidden to forbid.‖ Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God."

and also, due to my obsession with paradoxes in the faith:

"We therefore regard reason and faith as allies rather than enemies, and find no contradiction between head and heart, between being fully faithful on the one hand, and fully intellectually critical and contemporary on the other. Thus Evangelicals part company with reactionaries by being both reforming and innovative, but they also part company with modern progressives by challenging the ideal of the-newer-the-truer and the-latest-is-greatest and by conserving what is true and right and good. For Evangelicals, it is paradoxical though true that the surest way forward is always first to go back, a ―turning back‖ that is the secret of all true revivals and reformations."

by far one of the most necessary things for those both inside and outside of the church to hear:
"We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior. All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world."

This document is pretty monumental, and i'm not sure why it was not more highly anticipated in Christian circles. Maybe it was, but my head is in the sand or something. Anyway,its only twenty double spaced pages, read it.

The Enneagram.

2008-05-07T01:56:00.004-04:00

Here's the deal, until about a year ago, I LOATHED personality tests. Perhaps it was the fact that i had this unquenchable desire to be an "individual" and thus could not even begin to desire to allow a test to put me in a box and make me like 1/4 of the rest of the earth's population. This is how i felt until i found this--the ENNEAGRAM. Now, my story with this personality indicator is made 30x cooler by the fact that i was told my personality via the electrical currents in my body, however, this is irrelevant.

What i like about this system is that it really isn't confining. It gives some motivations and drives, its more about the "why" of a person than the "what". And as a person who values the why more than the what in general, i like this test.

There are nine possibilities in this model, and they are consist of the numbers 1-9. Each number has a few "archetypal" adjectives that describe the activity of the person. Here are the 9 types.

Brief descriptions of the nine Enneatypes are as follows:

[Ones: Reformers, Judges, Perfectionists]

Ones are focused on personal integrity and can be wise, discerning and inspiring in their quest for the truth. They also tend to dissociate themselves from their flaws or what they believe are flaws (such as negative emotions) and can become hypocritical and hyper-critical of others, seeking the illusion of virtue to hide their own vices. The greatest fear of Ones is to be flawed and their ultimate goal is perfection.

Ego fixation: resentment
Holy idea: perfection
Passion: anger
Virtue: serenity
Stress point: Four
Security point: Seven

[Twos: Helpers, Givers, Caretakers]

Twos, at their best, are compassionate, attentive, generous and caring but they can also be particularly prone to clinginess, neediness and manipulation. Twos want, above all, to be loved and needed and fear being unworthy of love.

Ego fixation: flattery
Holy idea: freedom
Passion: pride
Virtue: humility
Stress point: Eight
Security point: Four

[Threes: Achievers, Performers, Status Seekers]

Threes tend to be especially adaptable and changeable. Some walk the world with confidence and authenticity; others wear a series of public masks, acting in ways they think will bring them approval but losing track of their true self. Threes are motivated by the need to succeed and also to be seen as successful.

Ego fixation: vanity
Holy idea: hope
Passion: deceit
Virtue: truthfulness
Stress point: Nine
Security point: Six

[Fours: Romantics, Individualists, Aesthetes]

Fours are driven by the desire to understand themselves and find a place in the world. They often fear that they have no identity or personal significance. Fours embrace individualism and are often profoundly creative and intuitive and at best they are very humane. However, they have a habit of withdrawing to internalize, searching desperately inside themselves for something they never find and creating a spiral of depression.

Ego fixation: melancholy
Holy idea: originality
Passion: envy
Virtue: equanimity
Stress point: Two
Security point: One

[Fives: Experts, Thinkers, Investigators]

Fives are motivated by the desire to understand the facts about the world around them. Believing they are only worth what they contribute, Fives have learned to withdraw, to watch with keen eyes and speak only when they can shake the world with their observations. Sometimes they do just that. However, some Fives are known to withdraw from the world, becoming reclusive hermits and fending off social contact with abrasive cynicism. Fives fear incompetency or uselessness and want to be capable and knowledgeable above all else.

Ego fixation: stinginess
Holy idea: omniscience
Passion: avarice
Virtue: detachment
Stress point: Seven
Security point: Eight

[Sixes: Loyalists, Heroes / Rebels, Defenders]

Sixes long for safe stability above all else. They exhibit unwavering loyalty and responsibility, but once betrayed, they are slow to trust again. They are particularly prone to fearful thinking and emotional anxiety as well as reactionary and paranoid behavior. Sixes tend to react to their fears either in a phobic manner by avoiding fearful situations or by confronting them in a counterphobic manner.

Ego fixation: cowardice
Holy idea: faith
Passion: fear
Virtue: courage
Stress point: Three
Security point: Nine

[Sevens: Enthusiasts, Adventurers, Sensationalists]

Sevens are adventurous, constantly busy with many activities with all the energy and enthusiasm of the Puer Aeternus. At their best they embrace life for its varied joys and wonders and truly live in the moment but, at their worst, they dash frantically from one new experience to another, too scared of disappointment to actually enjoy themselves. Sevens fear being unable to provide for themselves or to experience life in all of its richness.

Ego fixation: planning
Holy idea: work
Passion: gluttony
Virtue: sobriety
Stress point: One
Security point: Five

[Eights: Bosses, Mavericks, Challengers]

Eights value their own strength and desire to be powerful and in control. They concern themselves with self-preservation. They are natural leaders who can be either friendly and charitable or dictatorially manipulative, ruthless and willing to destroy anything in their way. Eights seek control over their own lives and destinies and fear being harmed or controlled by others.

Ego fixation: vengeance
Holy idea: truth
Passion: excess (lust)
Virtue: innocence
Stress point: Five
Security point: Two

[Nines: Mediators, Peacemakers, Preservationists]

Nines are ruled by their empathy. At their best they are receptive, gentle, calming and at peace with the world. They also, however, tend to dissociate from conflicts and to indifferently go along with other people's wishes. They may also simply withdraw and try to shut down emotionally and mentally. They fear the conflict caused by their ability to simultaneously understand opposing points of view and seek peace of mind above all else. Nines are especially prone to dissociation and passive-aggressive behaviour.

Ego fixation: indolence
Holy idea: love
Passion: laziness (sloth)
Virtue: action
Stress point: Six
Security point: Three

Another interesting thing to note is that there are not usually any repeats within a family...unless, i suppose, you have more than 9 people in your immediate family. But in that case, some people's personalities are probably getting suppressed anyway. :) I love trying to guess which enneatype fits people in my life.

I am a 4. You should take a test and find out what you are, or just read through them and decided. You are probably going to be a better judge than any test, after all, you've lived with yourself for a while.

Urban Dictionary Update.

2008-05-05T15:03:00.004-04:00

Many of you may have used Urban Dictionary to get caught up on on the current Lexicon on the street--well, i took it to another level--I get an e-mail with the "Urban Word of the Day."

Today's Word:

Pomo

What do you think it means?
Maybe you already know and are much more avant-garde than I.

Dinner. What is it?

2008-05-05T00:45:00.004-04:00

If words mean things, can they mean different things on different days?

Such as, can dinner mean lunch on sundays? If i go to a "carry-in dinner" at warren first baptist at noon, can i call that dinner? What then, is the next meal called?
If dinner happens at 6 o'clock on every other day, then can it happen at noon on Sunday?

Andrew Smith thinks it can.
Ridicule him.

Please weigh in.

Starbucks, worth the bucks.

2008-05-04T21:38:00.005-04:00

Today i went to starbucks and was impressed, yet again, by the conversation i had there. I've always been a little skeptical of the whole "you are paying for the conversation atmosphere thing," but i can doubt no longer. Its true. Some of the most influential times of discussion and conversation can be pinpointed on a map.

[St. Louis]
-Chestefield Aiport Road in the Commons
(jenna--shed motherly wisdom in the area of family relationships)
(alexandra, katie, rachel, meredith--discussed what it means to truly be in community with your close girl friends)

--Delmar Road in the Loop
(Maria and i talked about the ways the church has hurt and destroyed its relationship with the people who need it the most)

--Olive Road
(Annie P and i talked about education and where its gone wrong. She told me about the approach of her classical school, and her opinion as a teacher and mother. I loved it.)

[California]

--Habor Road
(I talked with a Jehovah's Witness and began to understand just a bit what good looks like when it is severely tainted. Realized the necessity of every word in the Bible.)
(My parents took me to breakfast and told me i would be moving to St. Louis for my senior year if i so desired. I desired.)

--Fairview Road(Deitrich's Coffee, oops!)
(I read more books in the coffee shop than i've ever read sitting in my own room.)

[Gas City]
--Well, the only Starbucks in Gas City.
(I've sat with many a girl and had many a conversation this year, too many to count really.)
(Today, i went with Andrea DiSanto. In the 3 hours we sat talking, i was so encouraged by her insight and fellowship.]

So anyway, i thought i would document for myself the ways in which Starbucks (or Deitrich's) have been essential in the formation of my mind and thought process. The more i think about it, the more i don't see all these conversations as separate entities, filled with a conglomeration of ideas that i just stuffed into my mind for use later. They really have been integral in the process of forming my mind, molding and reminding my mind, making it different today than it was yesterday.

On this note, two things popped into my head after Coffee with Andrea today.

1. For this summer i have decided to live a "Holistic Summer" while i am home.

(Body)This will kick off by my attendance the holistic doctor to work at relieving my poor body of the harm it incurred/i forced upon it this year. Also, I will go to bed before midnight 6 nights a week and get up before 9. I will eat breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. I will train (providing that my ankle is better) for half marathon with my sisters. I will eat naturally as much as possible (hello lots of fruits, veggies, and hummus). No soda, no chips, no ice cream, no candy, no silliness. My body deserves a break from these things.

(Mind)I will read a book every week, and hopefully more than that. At the top of the list will be anything written by Neil Postman (possibly "The Disappearance of Childhood" first.) I will have conversations. I will blog.

(Soul)As i don't consider my soul to be entirely separate from mind or body, it think that both of the lists apply here. Also, i hope to do time in the word with my sisters in the mornings. (before our run?) Also, if i get up early enough, i'm going to go to San Clemente and sit on the lifeguard stand and read out loud from the Word. I love hearing the Word read in large passages out loud.

So there that is, you'll hear more this summer.

2. Today I pondered which 5 books had the greatest impact on my life, and why. Here they are, in a very particular order.

a. A Severe Mercy, by Sheldon Vanauken. (read in 2007) It doesn't matter who you are, this book will mean something to you. I heard today that it has been used as a marriage counseling book, it used to be used in the Foundations of Christan Thought Class, it was a part of my Junior year curriculum, and if you like a good story, this will do more than suffice. Old men like the book, middle school girls like the book. Its not really just a good story though. What impresses me most about this book is the fact that it was written. Weird, i know. But, its not a made up story, it is a man (sheldon vanauken) reflecting on his life with a certain aptitude for incredible synthesis and Godly understanding that is altogether quite uncommon. He writes about mercy in the most "graceful" way i've ever experienced (pun very much intended).

b. The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis. (read in 2006) Becoming real, need i say more?

c. Descent into Hell, by Charles Williams. (read in 2006) Biggest thing i learned here--Terrible Good. Perhaps this is when my love for paradox in the Christian faith began. Also, coming face to face with yourself (your doppleganger) is a scary, scary thing.

d. Letters to a Diminished Church, by: Dorothy Sayers. (read in 2006) If nothing else, the chapter "The Dogma is the Drama" is life changing.

e. Technopoly, by: Neil Postman. (read last week in 2008) Awareness. really, this man just wants people to wake up and see the way that visible and invisible technologies have changed our lives and motives. Thanks to him, i woke up a bit. Thanks to this man's inspiration, i didn't do my homework one night. I was altogether too aware of my faulty desire to have a positive quantification of my thoughts--an A+ on my understanding of Hegel's philosophy. (ok, maybe this wasn't Neil's fault, maybe i just didn't want to do it.)

My blogging addiction is somewhat out of control. Its good though, now i have to focus and finish the work that i was going to do in 3 hours, in 1.5 hours. :)

Postmodernism.

2008-05-03T23:33:00.004-04:00

Derrida v. Dennett...a paper i wrote for History of Philosophy. Nothing of my own thoughts...unless you consider my interpretation as my thoughts, in which case i might think you are correct. Without further adue:

Derrida begins his work “Structure, Sign, and Play” with the word “perhaps,” which seems entirely fitting as the whole body of the work is concerned. The object of this “perhaps” is an “event,” or the beginning of a shift from the old idea of structure to a new conception of it. The idea of a structure has always been coupled with the idea of a center which organizes and, more importantly, limits freeplay with in it. The idea of center, he says, is a paradoxical one. The center is both within, and outside, the structure—belonging to the totality, and outside it. Thus, “the center is not the center.” Concerning centers, within history, they can be seen as constantly being replaced within systems, each structure insisting on a different center. This “event”, then, as he discusses it, occurred when we became aware of the structure itself, and the center as a separate construct. He begins to wonder about this idea of a structure with a center, drawing attention to the necessity (despite all efforts) to refer to and speak within the confines of the structure you are attempting to deconstruct. He uses the example of the concept of “sign”, saying that signifying systems are centerless, with all the signs possessing an equal role with limitless freeplay. However, in using the word “sign” there has been a meaning assigned, and thus, the deconstruction of the system defeats itself.
Derrida next begins in on the work of Levi-Strauss. He gives an example of a time in his work where Levi-Strauss finds an inconsistency—a place that deconstructs, makes the oppositions unstable, and shakes up the entire structure. Derrida calls this, “putting the elements into play.” The key moment arises in how one deals with this deconstruction. There are two options. One can either attempt to reconstruct a system with no inconsistencies (deemed impossible by Derrida), or one can continue to use the previously deconstructed system with an awareness that it is founded on a center that is not fixed, but instead, has freeplay. If one chooses the latter approach, he is a Bricoleur, decidedly unconcerned with coherence of terms or truth value, elevating instead, their usefulness in the system. The bricoleur uses bricolage, which introduces a new way to discuss systems without appealing to a center. Arising from these assertions is the notion that totalization of a system is impossible—no system can cover all the bases because there are either too many things to account for or too much freeplay in the system. Play within the system disrupts the center, or presence. One can either dream of deciphering truth, a center free from play, or one can deal with the reality of the multiplicity of centers and get caught up in the freeplay. Thus the “perhaps” at the beginning of his essay was a signal of the denial of definitive truth that was to come.

Dennett, on the other hand, initially calls out to philosophers to regard their work with caution, so as not to harm, asking questions like: “What if I’m wrong?” These questions must be asked because, despite tradition, ideas affect lives in way that are worth worrying about. He, next, tells a story of a man who came to him, searching for “an epistemology.” He recognized a “gulf” between himself and the enquirer. This gulf is best described as the space between those who see proof as futile because of the relativity of truth, and those who see truth as scientific, provable. He has even been able to get his counterpart, Richard Rorty, to acknowledge the gap between reality and appearance—truth and non-truth.
The recognition and bridging of the gap are ideas that humans discovered and mastered. Humans, not animals, have the ability to worry about whether things are true, or if they just appear to be true. Because of this doubt, we invented communicative and recording innovations which come with the idea of truth inherent in them—the goal of truth is inherent in every culture. People ask questions to find true answers and measure things to get accurate ideas. Our technology of truth is science, using objective tools and objective organization so as to avoid opinion from tainting results. When science goes astray, which it will inevitably do, it is a result of bad science, political misuse of science, and unperfected methods—which are, luckily, perfectible.
These two works are, in most ways, diametrically opposed to one another. Ironically, both men use the idea of an engineer as a premier example in their work. In Derrida’s work, the engineer is seen, negatively, as someone who designs buildings with little or no freeplay, someone who aims to originate discourse from his own unique experience. He must create a stable system or nothing at all. This character is not one that Derrida would hold up as a shining example of human purpose, to say the least. In Dennett’s work, the engineer is someone who must ask himself: “Am I wrong?” This, to Dennett, is an entirely necessary question that can have either profound effects for good or evil. The example of the engineer sheds light on both men’s ideas about philosophy. While Derrida does nothing less than ridicule the engineer for his objectivity and desire for stability, Dennett highlights the necessity of objectivity in the realm of applied sciences as well as in discourse.
Dennett’s opponent, Rorty, takes what seems to be a similar stance to that of Derrida. He says that “debates about Truth really do erase the gulf, really do license a slide into some form of relativism.” He says that these discussions are just “conversations” (discourses, if you will) in which your side is determined by political, historical or aesthetic necessity. This is why Derrida points out the shift in centers from one time period or culture to the next—these conversations are in flux because the ideas of culture change over time, along with the conversations and discourses themselves. Dennett, however, still asserts that though language and metaphor are tools of thought, we also have other methods of ascertaining truth (e.g. microscopes and mathematics), which are not relative conversations, but lend themselves to objective truth. In the end, (in a much too simplistic manner), Derrida asserts that constructions of truth emanate from a pragmatic center, and can only be believed as true if that is how one chooses to deal with the deconstruction of truth—a nostalgic clinging to something that has been lost. Dennett, on the other hand, believes that objective truth is not just solely an exercise in clinging to what is most useful, but is, instead, an objective affirmation, worthy of complete confidence, if all correct methods are employed.

On a side note--Derrida is entirely too difficult to read for what he is trying to say. Dennett, though, speaks like i think philosophers should--coherently for the lay person, me.

Satire.

2008-05-02T13:26:00.004-04:00

I don't know about you, but i think Satire is one of the most powerful ways to communicate. If you've never checked out sites like the ONION, you should. It's an entirely different way of thinking about things, and a powerful one, especially in our culture that so enjoys sarcasm. Its a way to meet people who don't really care to talk intellectually, and trick them into it. HAHA. So devious.

I wrote a Satire Senior year. Props to Dr. Holley for being the best AP Expos teacher to ever walk the earth. I mean seriously, i'll probably post all of my papers from that class at some point, he made us write about important things, which, inevitably, made us think about important things.

Well here it is, my Satire:

Break All Ties—For Your Sake

Dear Friend,
I do not think that we should continue our friendship. I would like to say that it has been nice getting to know you, but that would be a lie. I really don’t care about you. But I don’t feel bad because I know you don’t care about me either. All I care about is myself. It is my belief, however, that we are all narcissists, so much so that we are unable to engage in the act of loving anyone else. I hope you will be able to accept the fact that I do not believe that our friendship is destined to continue. If you do not understand why I am saying all of this, then allow me to explain a bit more in depth.
Firstly, I do not really want you to know much about me. I like to stay safely introverted so that at no point will I be vulnerable. I don’t want you to know about my flaws or my imperfections. I do not want you to patronize my struggles by telling me all about yours. Mine are more important to me, so I don’t really want to hear about yours.
Secondly, I do not want to take any advice from you. If you do happen to see any part of my life which you deem to be “out of line,” I do not really want to hear about it. I don’t want to change—if I did, then I would have seen those problems and made those changes on my own. I am who I want to be; your influence means nothing. I am an individual, and my life is not to be ruled democratically by you and the rest of my “friends.”
Thirdly, I feel that hanging out with you, and anyone else for that matter, severely hinders the gain of any sense of self I that have ever hoped to have. Friendship often requires sacrifice, but why should I sacrifice any part of me in order that I might be friends with you? How does that help me? I gain nothing from your friendship except an earful of information about your life that I couldn’t care less about.
I am not sorry about any of this really; to be sorry would mean that I have taken time to regret something that I have done, and focused, for a moment, on your well-being, something I really do not have time for. But as my last act of thinking about others, I will offer you this advice: Break all ties.
I am currently contemplating a move to rural Kansas or upstate New York. I am highly anticipatory about all of the wonderful things that will come from my new, decidedly individualistic lifestyle. I will have much more time to ponder all things related to myself. I will no longer worry about what is socially acceptable or politically correct. I will forget about your problems and worry about my own. I will no longer have anyone to tell me when I have overstepped my bounds. I will no longer have to commit every Friday night for the rest of my life to a social event. I will no longer have to go to Starbucks as a tradition of friendship but instead will merely get my drink and leave without ever speaking a word to anyone, save the barista. I will never have to make small talk about the weather or the Cardinals. Not only will I not have friends and acquaintances, but also I am toying with the idea of forgoing all human contact—it’s just so “others centered.” After all, why should I care if your dog died? It’s your dog, not mine. That’s for you to deal with. I did not ask for any added stress. When my dog dies, I won’t beg for your attention. But you already know this because I told you that I’m leaving, and these are the last words I will ever speak to you—and if all goes as planned, the last words I will have to waste defending myself against all people like you who pry into my life, trying to “help” or “comfort” me.

This I believe, again.

2008-05-02T01:10:00.003-04:00

I once instructed a good friend to post his "this i believe essay" as a good starting point for his blog. As an act of solidarity, i will be posting mine as well, though i already posted it a few months ago. I still believe it...so here it is...again.

I believe in something—that’s right, something. I know most of you are thinking that this is a cop-out, a lame excuse to forgo identifying my core beliefs. Well, you are wrong. I love to meet people who believe in something. And by “believe”, I do not mean that they claim to have conviction. I am talking about those people whose lives are living proof of their claims. If you tell me you believe in abolishing poverty in third world countries, you gosh darned better be working towards that goal with more fervor than you have while power walking the mall to look for the newest superfluous things you simply, must have. By believe, I mean do. If you believe in relieving the poor of that burden, then do it—not all of it mind you, but as much as you can. I personally don’t believe in it. I want to, but it seems that I don’t. I wish I did, but I couldn’t possibly; that would mean giving of myself, something that I’m not yet prepared to believe in. So, let us all live out our beliefs. I believe that my convictions are objective truth—if you really believe something, then you ought to feel the same way concerning your beliefs—but I would rather meet one-hundred people who are diametrically opposed to my convictions and have legitimate reasons why than meet one person who concurs with what I say but has no idea why. However, in extreme cases, such as Osama Bin Laden and Hitler, I would probably retract this statement on the grounds that I am no longer speaking with a sane person. Please, not only live out your beliefs but know the beliefs for which you live.
In my short seventeen years, I have discovered, quite painfully at some points, that even a misguided belief with a good argument behind it often trumps the so called “impenetrable” case of a person who cannot make that case. Let’s all be fair and give each other respect by not wasting another person’s time arguing a position that we know little to nothing about.
Knowing what I believe is only the beginning. Often, in searching out the root of my beliefs, I realize that what I say I believe is not necessarily what I do believe. I say I believe in the power of prayer, but do I? If I truly realized the immensity of that truth claim, then I would probably find myself on my knees a lot more often—in a manifestation of my belief. Action follows belief. In my case, I know the right thing to believe, and yet the action is lacking, and it is obvious that the belief has not yet taken hold of me. If I cannot life it, then I do not believe it.
Living for your beliefs is being honest; it’s not pretending that you have convictions without understanding their implications. Saying that I believe in the power of prayer also implies that I have witnessed its immense power because of the way I daily see the blessing involved in a life spend saturated in fervent prayer. But I haven’t. I have seen the results in others’ lives. I have smattered my life with prayer yet have never fully realized the potential of this belief if it were to be lived out as it was meant to be. This honest approach has given me a better starting point, a humble one, from which to approach a person unhypocritically in conversations that may end up altering either party’s beliefs.
When two people come to the table with their own, well defined positions, it makes for an intellectual battle that is much more efficient and rewarding than the conversation that occurs between two people who really have no serious convictions but merely wish to have this type of conversation because it is the thing to do these days. The former conversation results in an exchange of wisdom, and the latter leaves those involved much more confused than when the conversation began.
So if you are planning on entering into one of these conversations any time soon, please believe in something, really believe it. This is something I believe. I believe in something.

Gaining Perspective.

2008-04-30T14:56:00.005-04:00

It's social justice week here at TU...a week i had been highly anticipating. Though i am on crutches, i had made the decision that that would not become a hindrance to sleeping outside in a box with about a hundred others who share the desire to gain an awareness throughout campus of those who don't have anything but a box to go home to at night. Then, i got sick. I was in the ER last night for the 3rd time this year due to breathing/asthma complications. Even so, there was a part of me that desperately still wanted to sleep outside. After a conversation with my roommate and a few others, and an analysis of the situation, i came to the conclusion that i would not stay outside. Frustrated, and lying in bed all day, I've had time to think about the decision and realized that to sleep outside while undergoing sickness and sore ankle would have been purely for selfish reasons. IF i was truly doing this to empathize, to gain awareness, then there is no need for me to sleep outside. Through the difficulty i am undergoing, trying to breathe, and trying to walk, i am experiencing a part of the pain that those on the street often deal with. I can empathize with that. I am uncomfortable, i have to spend most of my energy drawing a breath, i can't walk around easily, and i have to depend on others to help me through my days. So, I am learning to be empathetic to the pain, and sympathetic to those who don't have somewhere comfortable to go, don't have nebulizers to help draw a breath, crutches and golf cart to help them get around, and people to support them throughout their day. Ironically, my social justice week is the exact opposite of those living outside. The context of their day is lived as a the least of these, and the content of my day is lived as the least of these. Separately, we will never know what it is like, unless we are to experience it first hand. Put us together, and we have a community who is (somewhat) aware of the pain and the conditions and is ready to love in an entirely different way.

Also, a thought from Donald Miller,that I'm trying to keep in mind (i think that we may be using the word "sympathetic" in a different way, perhaps he is using it more in the sense of pity)

"Somehow I had come to believe that because a person is in need, they are candidates for sympathy, not just charity. It was not that i wanted to buy her groceries, the government was already doing that. I wanted to buy her dignity. And yet, by judging her, I was the one taking her dignity away."

_____________________________________________________________________________________
On an entirely different (and yet, not) note. I just finished 1000 Splendid Suns. (One can read 300 pages in a day if one cannot get out of bed). I'm still processing, quite a bit. Without giving away the heart wrenching plot, suffice it to say that this book was all too real.

At the end, Tariq, one of the main characters says that the war "may not be so bad in the end."

His wife, Laila, responds saying, "Not so bad? People dying? Women, children, old people? Homes destroyed again? Not so bad?...How can you say that Tariq?...You wouldn't know. You left when the Mujahadeen began fighting, remember? I'm the one who stayed behind. Me. I know war. I lost my parents to war. My parents, Tariq. And now to hear you say that war is not so bad?"

He answers, "I'm sorry Laila. I'm sorry. You're right. I'm sorry. Forgive me. What i meant was that maybe there will be hope at the other end of this war, that maybe for the first time in a long time...

She begins to think, it unfair, what she said to him--hadn't war taken his parents too?--and whatever had flared in her was softening already...She knows that he is probably right. She knows how his comment was intended. Maybe this is necessary. Maybe there will be hopewhen Bush's bombs stop falling. But she cannot bring herself to say it, not when what happened to Babi and Mammy is happening to someone now in Afghanistan, not when some unsuspecting girl or boy back home has just been orphaned by a rocket as she was. Laila cannot bring herself to say it. It's hard to rejoice. It seems hypocritical, perverse.

This book was powerful. You should read it. It was written by an Afghani born man. It is important to see things from the perspective of those who are going through a trial. That is why i support social justice week and Khaled Hosseini, and also why i recommend both to you.

My Philosophy of Technology.

2008-04-29T00:55:00.004-04:00

This is a paper that i may or may not have spent all night on, though it is the least of my worries right now. This what real education does though, in part, develop passion within its learners...

As with most “ologies”, I believe that there is a Christ-centered philosophy behind technology. (I wonder if the use of the made up word “ologies” would fit in to a Christian philosophy of etymology). Technology, to me, would be defined as any invention or convention that aims at improving or expediting any given process. The emphasis in that definition rests on the word “aims,” which is pivotal to a Christian view of technology. While technologies such as the written word, grade point averages, and the world wide web were created in an effort to advance the human race’s capacity to remember and analyze, to categorize and measure, and to communicate and share knowledge, their intended aim was not their only effect.
One may wonder why this matters to a Christian—to know the accidental effect of technology. It matters because Christian’s are called to be “in the world, but not of it.” Technology, while invaluable in some aspects, is still an unnatural part of this world that we should never cease to be wary of. When I say wary, I mean it in the least demeaning or negative way possible; it’s not that we should be constantly suspicious, but instead, hold to a healthy caution and attentiveness concerning all things man-made. This prudence can manifest itself in the most obvious manner—the disgust with immoral uses of technology, or in the most covert of ways—the awareness of a steady shift to a culture that reveres the god of high speed internet above the God who gave us the capacity the create the things we put on the internet, the internet itself. As Christians, there are very practical reasons to be aware of technologies positive and negative uses and effects—primarily because technology is in the world, and so are we. Though there may be some who hold to the idea or tradition that technology is a pervasive, corrupting force that should be shunned at all costs, technology is not, and cannot, be purely evil. It is my belief that all evil is a distortion of some good. It is important that we, as Christians, cling to the good that certain technologies afford us, without forgetting to recognize the ways in which they are corrupted or have the ability to corrupt.
Without a constant analysis of those things that influence us it is possible to miss out on the best that the Lord has created for us. Facebook? Not bad. Cell phones? Not bad. SAT scores and the grading phenomenon? Not bad. Cars? Not bad. It is important to remember, however, that each of these things play major role in our society, and each of these things contributes negatively in about the same capacity as it contributes positively. Therefore, though it may not be the fault of the technology, a healthy view of these technologies is integral to the Christian faith. As it says in 1 Corinthians 6:12, “Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.” The refrain “I will not be mastered by anything” plays over and over in my mind, reminding me of my addiction to those things that are not necessarily beneficial to me, to my relationships with those on earth, and my relationship to Him in Heaven. Technology has had a mastering effect on most, a sad statement when considering the number of Christians who are called to, ultimately, submit to one Master, but have failed miserably in an attempt to submit to both a master on earth, and Master in Heaven.
The question “why” is highly under appreciated in the Christian community. Why television? Why medicine? Why e-mail? This question may, initially, sound silly. Well, television—for entertainment, of course! Well, medicine—for healing, of course! Well, e-mail, for rapid communication, of course! The why question may be more aptly put, what is the why behind television, behind medicine, behind e-mail? Everyone with half a brain and one eye can see the obvious purpose of these technologies, what is behind, however, is altogether less forthcoming, it requires much less focus on what is being done, but what is being undone. Without attempting to sound trite, what are you not doing when you watch television? Probably a whole lot. What is being lost when you do not necessarily have to engage your mind, when words like “veg out” can become commonplace adjectives for those who sit in front of the TV? What context are you not getting when images portray “reality”? These kinds of questions beg to be asked, but often are neglected by those who wish to embrace reality and all its shortcomings. And, even when they are realized and television is blamed for obesity or failed intelligence, “never you fear, a new technology is here” to remedy those mal effects brought on by the previous technology. We have the advent of the diet pill and educational computer games (as if kids needed to stare at another screen to fix the maladies brought on them by their last screen addiction). It becomes a vicious cycle. Christians must be at the forefront of halting this ridiculous cycle, not by attempting to halt the production of technology (as if that would be a feasible solution), but instead, by attempting to halt the presence of technology without awareness. As a sidenote, non Christians can benefit from this awareness too, even without the belief in God, the creator of all things. Christians need not use technology as another ancient soapbox from which they thump their non electronic copies of their Bible’s on peoples’ botox ridden, braces filled, hearing aided heads. Christianity is relevant, Christianity is practical, but Christianity is also uncomfortable. And, as the chief end of many a technology is comfort—here this the rub. Sometimes, Christianity may have to speak out against the use of certain technologies, but the discomfort that could be caused should do nothing to avert the intentions of those who have considered technology’s possible inadvertent or even intentional consequences.
As an example, I would like to draw an awareness to the the way that community has evolved with technology. few hundred years ago, a web based community would have been a preposterous notion. Community meant getting together with loved ones and those in the surrounding areas to tell stories, explore ideas, orally debate political issues, enjoy each other’s company, and solve any problems that presented themselves within the group. “Community”, at its root, comes from the Latin word communitatus. There are three parts that comprise the word. “Com” is a Latin prefix that means “with or together”. “Munis” means “the changes or exchanges that link”. “Tatus” is a Latin suffix that means “diminutive, small, intimate, or local” This idea of community is not something that the modern world is familiar with because as technology advanced, so did each civilization’s idea of community. Once postal correspondence became a viable option, so did the notion of far-reaching community, that is, a community connected by ideas rather than physical presence. This had a positive impact on American society because of its ability to connect those who wished to keep in contact but were hindered by distance. However, the consequence of this advancement was a lack of face to face interaction, which was inevitable considering the medium. Technology evolved yet again and brought the world the telephone, a new, faster way to associate with others. Like writing letters, the telephone made face to face contact unnecessary. Although the telephone proved to be an even more efficient tool than writing letters, it also had its drawbacks. Contacting people became such a simple task, that it became almost too commonplace. Communication took little effort at best. When there is more work involved in communication, its significance increases, it means more. The next development in the technological scene was the cell phone. No longer did one need to remain in his household to place calls, but was granted the opportunity to become even more efficient by interaction while mobile. It furthered the ease of contact and made significance diminish even more so than the invention of the telephone. Another momentous technological leap was that of Electronic mail. Merging the idea of the letter with the newly created World Wide Web, the result was one that people of past eras could not have imagined if speculating about the future. As if “community” could not have come any farther from its original meaning, the web yet again redefined that idea. No longer did one have to utilize their vocal chords. Instead, simple strokes on a key board could conveniently convey any message imaginable. Not only did it replace the intonation involved with speaking, but it also traded in the personal touch of handwriting for cold, removed Times New Roman font. The most recent creation to further community is an entity called Facebook. Not only can users of Facebook interact through words, but pictures and self descriptions play a major role. It created not only a way to communicate, but it has become its own community.
It is in this newest technology that I would like to sit for a moment. Facebook, though with many a positive attribute, has the ability to erode, with great force, the idea of authentic Christian community—community in general. One aspect that draws people to this technology is that they are free to be whomever they wish to be on Facebook. John Locke, a political philosopher from the seventeenth century, produced a philosophy based on an imaginary situation. This situation, a state of nature, was one that possessed no overarching authority. A parallel can be drawn between Locke’s state of nature and Zuckerberg’s Facebook. A state of nature is a condition in which no government exists. Likewise, Facebook has no authority to check the validity of people’s actions. Facebook users have the power to make their own rules. They are able to disregard social expectations, and political correctness is thrown out the window. The unchecked ability to create one’s self adds to the desire to exaggerate, to portray one’s self in a better light, yet again proving that the Facebook community is not always genuine. This can prove to be problematic in a place where honesty and true vulnerability should be held as virtues paramount.
No matter how poorly or wisely one uses social networking sites like Facebook, there are still limitations on what the medium can do. Hipps explains, “It is not that content doesn’t matter, but it is true that if we only take note of content, we are missing much of the power of any medium” (Hipps). This is why it is important to put every new technology under heavy scrutiny. The questions: “What does it extend? What does it make obsolete? What does it retrieve? And what does it reverse into?” are helpful tools in beginning to understand what is gained and lost with entrance of every new innovation. Many times “we are…numb to the way our lives are impacted by the mass media and do not see the danger they pose” (Hipps). It is helpful to look at the progression of technology throughout history and to see the way societies changed due to the new system’s unintended consequences. As far as the current culture is concerned, many repercussions can already be seen. Loss of genuine communication and loss of understanding have resulted the hindering of the “getting to know you” process. These are effects of the limitations that are inevitable when communicating, or building community, via online networking. Nevertheless, Facebook has in many ways fulfilled its objectives by allowing for efficient time management, providing the means to reestablish forgotten friendships, and supplying the tools to expand one’s resources. Similar to all other new technologies, Facebook has, indeed, proved to be a combination of the advantageous and the undesirable.
Facebook is only one example of a way in which technology has changed our community. In some ways, we benefit, in others, we lose. The problem occurs when we fail to realize the ways in which, despite the progress, we are taking a step back.

I like thinking about this...end of story.

Beating a Dead Horse.

2008-04-26T02:35:00.003-04:00

Yes. I'm going to do it, and i'm not going to feel bad about the analogy either.

The Purpose of Education. Its a theme in my life, apparently. In class on thursday, we were talking about Technopoly, again. My professor simply asked, "why do you go to school?" My body literally tensed up when he asked the question. I felt like the first answer out of someone's mouth would be very telling--i decided to wait it out and keep my mouth closed on a subject i think about far too often. Low and behold, the first answer out of someone's mouth (and i am still unsure as to whether she was giving her own opinion or voicing the opinion of the cultural majority, and i'm also wondering which i would have preferred.)--"to get a job."

I got angry. This doesn't happen very often, and it almost always happens when i think someone's ideas are mistaken, not because someone has hurt me, but hurt the ideas i hold so strongly to. I guess i let my ideas become inseperable from myself. Unlike most times, however, i felt a sense of hopelessness. I usually have a quick answer, a solution, a sharp remark to somehow cut down the silly conjectures of those who disagree with my stance on education,instead, i was silent. My anger quickly turned to sadness. Every part of me was crying out "really? I mean, really? That's the point? That is why I should, you should, go to school?" Yet, i couldn't bring myself to say anything. I felt that "to learn" would have seemed a trite and typical answer from a philosophy major, and anything else would have fallen on ears who did't want to hear.

My first constructive thought was--what about when you're 80? You will, no doubt, not be involved in the field you studied in school. There is no need for 80 year old teachers, psychologists, or computer scientists. Does your purpose, then, become irrelavant? Did everything i learn merely get me a good job, did i bide my time in school so that eventualy i could do something that i really wanted to do--make money? Well great, then the whole of my existence up until i acquire that job is spent readying myself for that end--but the problem is that life doesn't end when, someday, my job ends. All I'm saying is that wouldn't our time be better spent preparing us as people who's chief end is not to make money or have a job, but, instead, to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever? We have, even in the Christian community, glorified the "good life" and the "american dream", killing ourselves to make it through an education that is quite frequently unenjoyable and merely a stepping stone to our end.

TO GLORIFY GOD AND ENJOY HIM FOREVER.
Forever is now. Forever is elementary school. Forever is High School. Forever is college. Forever is our job. We have made school into a place where we prepare to enjoy god and glorify Him forever (primarily through our work). College is not preparation. Life is now. Education is not a stepping stone, its not a means to an end. It is an end in itself, and, unlike a vocation, it shouldn't stop until we die.

This has turned into something that isn't even about education for me anymore, its about processes. We have turned in to such a goal oriented society. Depending on the goal that we aim for, the process of achieving is Heaven or Hell. As Christians, education, among other things, must be seen as a process that acheives the goal of glorifying God, and allows us to enjoy him (and the process, which is tied up in Him). As Christians, if we aim for any other goal, we have missed the mark.

Good Post. Just kidding.

2008-04-22T14:12:00.003-04:00

[you will inevitably not understand what you are about to read until you watch the video...read it anyway, and enjoy a video that has overtaken conversation on my wing for the last two weeks]

You need to watch this video. right now. Just kidding. You can watch it later. just kidding, you'll have other things to do later. just kidding, you don't do anything with your time. Just kidding you are super productive. just kidding, you a lazy bum who can't keep a job. just kidding, you are a CEO who is worth upwards of a billion dollars. Just kidding, you are Donald Trump. Just kidding, you have good hair. Just kidding, its ugly. Just kidding, you are a wig model. Just kidding, your cheekbones aren't high enough to model. Just kidding, your face is perfect. Just kidding, no one is perfect. Just kidding, just kidding, just kidding.

New words...

2008-04-22T02:24:00.004-04:00

They get added every year to the dictionary. (see here)

As of dinner this evening, I, along with Samantha Renee, Carly Ann, and Emily Rose, propose a new word to be included in next years addition:

Clude
Pronunciation: \klüd\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): clud·ed; clud·ing

1 : to be around
2 : to be near or exist by part of a whole or a group
3 : to contain around
—clud·able or clud·ible \ˈklü-də-bəl\ adjective

WHY? you may ask. I will tell you.

This is an in between stage that is so oft forgotten or overlooked. There is including and excluding, but what about those times when you are not excluded, but inclusion is not the correct term to describe your relation to those around you--this is clusion. Cluding can occur when people are near each other, not engaging really, just existing. It is the state of being until one becomes included or deliberately excluded. For example, cliques are exclusive whether by word, body language, or deed. However, there are groups of people who congregate, but not as an exclusive body. If one were to approach this sort of group, he or she would not be automatically excluded but is not yet included. Once this person attempts to join a conversation or even joins the general vicinity, he or she is cluding until his or her words are responded to:

Johnny stands near a group of people (cluding).
Johnny walks over to a group of people (cluding).
Johnny says, "hey guys!!" (still cluding).
*momentary silence before response* (cluding, pending inclusion or exclusion)
Group responds, "HEY JOHNNY, great to see you" (definite incluing)

So, I hope you recognize the need to incorporate or "include" this word into our common vernacular, as it will be highly beneficial and a more exact reference to what is actually happening in social interactions. Right now, we are cluding this word, existing with it. Your response to the word will dictate whether or not it is rejected by inclusion or dejected by exclusion. Don't make the wrong decision.

Next word to contemplate: trovert
not an introvert. not an extrovert. I know quite a few of these people. Why pick which one you are, when you know you are right in the middle, that you are troverted?? good question that BEGS for an answer.

It happened again...

2008-04-20T01:49:00.004-04:00

It happened again today.

"What?" You may ask.

Well, you, someone asked me what I plan to to with my major. I suppose it is a legitimate question. Every other major seems to have some "do" involved. And even philsophy, as a major, is used as a springboard to seminary, law school, and the like. Everytime i try to be realistic, every time it try to tell myself that i should perhaps get a more applicable, useful, tangible field of study, something in me will not allow it. Over the last 2 weeks i've begun to realize a bit more about just why that might be.

National Student Leadership Conference was an incredible weekend full of thoughts that needed to be manifested into word form. But, the thoughts and words i would most like to recall for you are the ones spoken by a Dr. Paul Spears, protege of the ever-loved J.P. Moreland. I sat in Dr. Spears workshop "The Curse of Cursive Writing, and other Myths that Shaped our Education," and drank in every word. He relayed the common idea of education today, and it went somthing like this:

-Edcation is about job-getting, not about flourishing.
-Students need to start thinking of themselves as what they can produce, not in terms of what they can know and understand.
-Education is a monetary end, not an interaction with the world around us.

We are keenly cautious and aware of the fact that there are standards (A's & B's) that must be met and that are, for all intensive purposes, our primary goal. If we are, in some way, unable to meet these standards, we are deemed unfit for the intellectual realm and pitied for what we can never become. (For afterall, we have learned that our ability to do intellectual work directly relates to capitol). We have been so brainwashed into thinking that meeting these standards is the goal, that we have forgotten to pursue education that we may become "better men." The sad thing is how entrenched we are, and how unaware.

Not only in at National Student Leadership Conference, but also in my studies for class, i have read things that shed further light on the point of education.

In Technopoly, Neil Postman points out an important shift in the way we see achievment in the realm of education: "I refer to the seemingly harmless practice of assigning marks or grades to the answers studnets give on examinations. This procedure seem so natural to most of us that we are hardly aware of its significance. We may even find it difficult to imagine that the number or letter is a tool or ,if you will, a technology...I shall not argue her that this is a stupid or dangerous idea, only that it is peculiar. What is even more peculiar is that man of us do notfind the idea peculiar. To say that someone should be doing better work because he has an IQ of 134...or that this man's essay on the rise of capitalism is an A- and that man's is a C+ would have sounded like gibberish to Galileo or Shakespeare or Thomas Jefferson. If it makes sense to us, that is because or minds have been conditioned by the technology of numbers so that we see the world differently than they did. Our understanding of what is real is different."

The idea of quantifying intelligence is just an example of how education is now viewed. Studies are a means to something else, be it a grade, law school, or the perfect job (perhaps all three). And thats fine, its just not really going to be satisfactory in the end. Many of you have heard me talk of the cyclical nature of this view of education, but here it is again: Why do we work hard in high school? To get into college, of course. Why do we work hard in college? To get into Grad school, of course. Why do we work hard in Grad School? To get a good job, of course. Why do we need a good job? To make money, of course. Why do we need to make money? To put food on the table, and to put our kids into good schools, of course. Why do we make our kids work hard in school? So they can get into college, of course. Why do they need to do well in college? To get a good job, OF COURSE.

Of course, I realize this isn't the stated motive of most, but I would be willing to guess, judging by the questions i recieve so often concerning what i will "do" with my major, that a majority of people see education in this way--as a means to an end.

Well, I think its an end in itself. So here I am, a philosohy major, quite unsure of what i want to do with my life, and thoroughly at peace about it.

And here is a little something from tonights Heidegger reading: "It is absolutely correct and proper to say that 'you can't do anything with philosophy.' It is only wrong to suppose that this is the last word on philosophy. For the rejoinder imposes itself: granted that we cannot do anything with philosophy, might not philosophy, if we concern ourselves with it, do something with us? So much for what philosophy is not."

And here i am, back up on my soapbox, begging for a reorientation in education. Its not about what we do with education, its about what it does to us. (This does not mean that there is no need for doing, just that education is not something that ends when a job is ascertained, nor is it job-training. It is, itself, an end.)

And this too, is an end. (of a long post)

Car Alarms

2008-04-13T19:29:00.005-04:00

I just heard one, and I know i'm not alone in my reaction to the incessant beeping--"stupid person hit the panic button on their keychain, again"

Does this defeat the purpose of car alarms if this is our immediate reaction? I think so.

On another note, we had our National Student Leadership Conference this weekend and it was incredible. I don't give out compliments like that to conferences very frequently, in fact this may be the first conference-like thing i've ever attended AND enjoyed. The speakers didn't seem as "conferency" as usual. More on this later when i'm not catching up on all the work i haven't been doing all week.