You know, whenever I have a really bad day, it's nice just to watch a video of someone doing something so stupid or screwing up so badly. It's not out of sadism or anything like that, I just think things like that are hilariously funny so it cheers me up.
I hope this video does that for someone:
15 Minutes of Shame
You guys, in your comments, should post videos that have done this for you.
But no stuff from failblog, because I have viewed every single page on that site. Literally.
12.28.2008
12.25.2008
The Familiar
Ha, that title totally sounds like a band name.
I have lived in the same house in Dallas, TX for 21 full years as of sometime next month, or at least my mom has. I have intermittently moved out because of college or stuff like that, but never for more than a few months. It's still my "home," if you know what I mean. Anyways, I was driving today and I realized something funny.
There's a stretch of highway about a half a mile from my house, one of the most important highways in the city. I am obviously very well-versed in this city, so you'd think that I drive over this stretch of highway all the time, especially since it's by my house. I often use this particular highway to get back to my house or go from my house, because it's just that close and is a major transit point.
Typically, though, I get off the highway to go to my house before I get to the part of the highway which is closest to my house. I exit right before this stretch coming from either direction, so I never drive over it.
Well, this week I'm staying at someone else's house nearby, but not close enough to take the same exit. So, tonight, driving back from Kristen's house, I had to drive over this one stretch of highway that I never see to get home.
It was like I had never been here before. Here was this major transit within walking distance of my house I had hardly ever seen before on a road I used almost daily for 21 years that was practically foreign soil.
It's amazing how something so close can be so unknown.
It reminds me that it is impossible to know everything about anything at all.
I could spend my entire life studying a speck of dust and never know every atom or what it was going to do next, much less an entire city.
It makes me excited.
I tend to get bored with things easily.
But there is such a possibility that the pursuit of knowledge is an infinite, endless pursuit. If you're actually a living breathing being, and not just an apathetic machine, every year and every holiday season and every visit to the town you thought you had pegged should change you and make you see something new.
You don't have to believe that Disney-esque crap about enjoying the small things or finding your own special personal peace. Stopping to smell the flowers is overrated, because flowers are far from the mot interesting things there are.
There are things within your range of sight this very second that are fascinating, and you haven't even considered it.
Don't ever call yourself my friend and say you're bored with life. I'm excited enough about little stretches of highway and wondering how scientists discovered that dogs enjoy the taste of dog food.
Being baffled and confused and lacking knowledge is fun.
I have lived in the same house in Dallas, TX for 21 full years as of sometime next month, or at least my mom has. I have intermittently moved out because of college or stuff like that, but never for more than a few months. It's still my "home," if you know what I mean. Anyways, I was driving today and I realized something funny.
There's a stretch of highway about a half a mile from my house, one of the most important highways in the city. I am obviously very well-versed in this city, so you'd think that I drive over this stretch of highway all the time, especially since it's by my house. I often use this particular highway to get back to my house or go from my house, because it's just that close and is a major transit point.
Typically, though, I get off the highway to go to my house before I get to the part of the highway which is closest to my house. I exit right before this stretch coming from either direction, so I never drive over it.
Well, this week I'm staying at someone else's house nearby, but not close enough to take the same exit. So, tonight, driving back from Kristen's house, I had to drive over this one stretch of highway that I never see to get home.
It was like I had never been here before. Here was this major transit within walking distance of my house I had hardly ever seen before on a road I used almost daily for 21 years that was practically foreign soil.
It's amazing how something so close can be so unknown.
It reminds me that it is impossible to know everything about anything at all.
I could spend my entire life studying a speck of dust and never know every atom or what it was going to do next, much less an entire city.
It makes me excited.
I tend to get bored with things easily.
But there is such a possibility that the pursuit of knowledge is an infinite, endless pursuit. If you're actually a living breathing being, and not just an apathetic machine, every year and every holiday season and every visit to the town you thought you had pegged should change you and make you see something new.
You don't have to believe that Disney-esque crap about enjoying the small things or finding your own special personal peace. Stopping to smell the flowers is overrated, because flowers are far from the mot interesting things there are.
There are things within your range of sight this very second that are fascinating, and you haven't even considered it.
Don't ever call yourself my friend and say you're bored with life. I'm excited enough about little stretches of highway and wondering how scientists discovered that dogs enjoy the taste of dog food.
Being baffled and confused and lacking knowledge is fun.
12.21.2008
Deep and Weird
Well, I hope all of you are enjoying your Winter Breaks.
I haven't blogged much lately, partially because of icky finals and mostly because my internet has been broken.
Stupid 'puter.
But, it is now fixed.
Also, check out my most recent link.
36 is thinking of doing "Worst Christmas Traditions" next year for the J. Alvin Christmas party, and fruitcake has a very strong chance of making the cut.
So, obviously, things are easier to destroy than they are to create.
It took me four hours to build my big, fancy LEGO house and ten seconds to smash it with my baseball bat.
So, in that sense, creation is more important and meaningful than destruction.
I think that creation is associated with goodness responsibility and destruction with badness and disorder.
But, at the same time, destruction is necessary because things decay.
Think about it this way:
If I built a house one day, and I made it entirely out of wood, then after 60 years or so, the wood would rot. I would then have to either remove the bad parts of the house, thus destroying, and add new ones, thus creating again or I would simply tear down the house and build a better one.
In that case, and in many cases, it seems that the purpose of creation is not only to make, but to make new and to make better.
So, think about it this way, God created our world with the intention for it to be good and to last forever, but he knew that sin would enter the world and corrupt all of these good things.
This made it possible for God to remake the world, thus keeping only the good things, which would be the parts of the house that stayed good after 60 years, and improve it.
So, destruction is only necessary because of the fall, but it also makes a greater and more powerful creation possible.
So, sin itself isn't a good thing, but God is so powerful that, by overcoming sin, he makes what is good even better.
The world is going to be remade.
There are things that suck.
But we have a lot to look forward to.
Isn't that neat?
I haven't blogged much lately, partially because of icky finals and mostly because my internet has been broken.
Stupid 'puter.
But, it is now fixed.
Also, check out my most recent link.
36 is thinking of doing "Worst Christmas Traditions" next year for the J. Alvin Christmas party, and fruitcake has a very strong chance of making the cut.
So, obviously, things are easier to destroy than they are to create.
It took me four hours to build my big, fancy LEGO house and ten seconds to smash it with my baseball bat.
So, in that sense, creation is more important and meaningful than destruction.
I think that creation is associated with goodness responsibility and destruction with badness and disorder.
But, at the same time, destruction is necessary because things decay.
Think about it this way:
If I built a house one day, and I made it entirely out of wood, then after 60 years or so, the wood would rot. I would then have to either remove the bad parts of the house, thus destroying, and add new ones, thus creating again or I would simply tear down the house and build a better one.
In that case, and in many cases, it seems that the purpose of creation is not only to make, but to make new and to make better.
So, think about it this way, God created our world with the intention for it to be good and to last forever, but he knew that sin would enter the world and corrupt all of these good things.
This made it possible for God to remake the world, thus keeping only the good things, which would be the parts of the house that stayed good after 60 years, and improve it.
So, destruction is only necessary because of the fall, but it also makes a greater and more powerful creation possible.
So, sin itself isn't a good thing, but God is so powerful that, by overcoming sin, he makes what is good even better.
The world is going to be remade.
There are things that suck.
But we have a lot to look forward to.
Isn't that neat?
12.12.2008
*Ahem* It's been a while
Yeah, I took some down time from blogs because life was crazy.
Plus there's something about studying that makes me think less deeply.
Maybe that's bad.
Paper writing is very thought provoking, though, as it should be.
So, today I wonder about gambling.
I can't decide if I think it's a sin or not.
I went to Las Vegas once, and I think the most depressing thing I have ever seen was a woman in a wheelchair and on a respirator gambling what was probably insurance money for her healthcare at a slot machine. Gambling in this sense is very sinful because you are wasting your resources on an addictive and completely non-productive habit.
On the other hand, people do gamble for a living, and do so productively. Especially in like World Poker Tour and stuff like that, because those do, to an extent, require skill and hard work.
Obviously, things like this are not the most admirable jobs in the world, but being uninspiring is hardly a sin.
Gambling as a whole though is very destructive.
It results from a corrupted desire for money, and money that you "earn" from gambling is not exactly something you worked for.
The problem with this is that it gives money a value that it just doesn't deserve.
Money was originally created in order for people to specialize in certain things like making shoes or sewing and still have necessities such as food. One person provides something valuable at an efficient rate because they specialize in making that thing, then they supply that one thing for a large group of people. Therefore more things total are produced and produced better.
Money is used as a way to establish how much they deserve in return for their specialized contribution; in other words, money is a representation of the value of one person's contribution to society.
So, when gambling, either the casino or the gambler acquires more money.
Did either of them contribute something valuable to society?
No.
I mean, maybe entertainment. I certainly don't find gambling that entertaining, though.
So, it is a sin?
Ummm.... sort of.
People who gamble do so either because it's fun, or because they want to acquire money that they have not earned. In either case, it's selfish and destructive.
The greed and desire for money that must come before gambling is absolutely a sin.
Gambling itself might not be.
Sort of in the same way that sex can be good or sinful, depending on the context - marriage or not.
It's just that there are far less instances in which gambling is good and entertaining in a pure way.
BIG P.S. - Go check out the random link for this week. It's absolutely amazing.
Plus there's something about studying that makes me think less deeply.
Maybe that's bad.
Paper writing is very thought provoking, though, as it should be.
So, today I wonder about gambling.
I can't decide if I think it's a sin or not.
I went to Las Vegas once, and I think the most depressing thing I have ever seen was a woman in a wheelchair and on a respirator gambling what was probably insurance money for her healthcare at a slot machine. Gambling in this sense is very sinful because you are wasting your resources on an addictive and completely non-productive habit.
On the other hand, people do gamble for a living, and do so productively. Especially in like World Poker Tour and stuff like that, because those do, to an extent, require skill and hard work.
Obviously, things like this are not the most admirable jobs in the world, but being uninspiring is hardly a sin.
Gambling as a whole though is very destructive.
It results from a corrupted desire for money, and money that you "earn" from gambling is not exactly something you worked for.
The problem with this is that it gives money a value that it just doesn't deserve.
Money was originally created in order for people to specialize in certain things like making shoes or sewing and still have necessities such as food. One person provides something valuable at an efficient rate because they specialize in making that thing, then they supply that one thing for a large group of people. Therefore more things total are produced and produced better.
Money is used as a way to establish how much they deserve in return for their specialized contribution; in other words, money is a representation of the value of one person's contribution to society.
So, when gambling, either the casino or the gambler acquires more money.
Did either of them contribute something valuable to society?
No.
I mean, maybe entertainment. I certainly don't find gambling that entertaining, though.
So, it is a sin?
Ummm.... sort of.
People who gamble do so either because it's fun, or because they want to acquire money that they have not earned. In either case, it's selfish and destructive.
The greed and desire for money that must come before gambling is absolutely a sin.
Gambling itself might not be.
Sort of in the same way that sex can be good or sinful, depending on the context - marriage or not.
It's just that there are far less instances in which gambling is good and entertaining in a pure way.
BIG P.S. - Go check out the random link for this week. It's absolutely amazing.
11.30.2008
My Life is Complete if Someone Buys Me This! ...not.
So, they have reached a new plateau of lame inventions:
The USB Toaster.
Plug it into your computer and you can put that picture of your dead Aunt Mary's left shoulder blade you've been saving right on your toast and eat it.
As cool as this thing is, I think everyone who actually spends whatever ridiculous price they charge for this item should be forced to spend an equal amount to a charity, just from sheer waste of money.
There are so many things that I feel guilty spending money on because I don't feel they're valuable - like textbooks - and I feel like so much of my life requires money. And I'm not talking about things of sentimental value, like flowers, because that's a great investment. If you at any point spend money for the good of someone else, like flowers, then that's amazing because it means you value that person's feelings more than money.
At the same time, however, money should be valued as a means of meeting basic needs for yourself and others. Keep in mind that money itself is not a need, it is merely a way of attaining needs. This was an idea invented by people so everyone could have different jobs and still eat.
Now we have rich people buying psychic toasters and poor people eating rice 3 times a week if they're lucky.
I'd much rather be the guy who first and foremost provided for his family, then helped provide for someone else and still sacrificed enough to buy his wife flowers.
I wouldn't even be able to eat a piece of toast with a picture on it, anyways.
Especially not if it was like a bunny or a baby or something.
Hmm, okay also because none of you read the little sidebar thing, I'm just going to start posting the joke of the week and the random link of the week and stuff as individual blogs...
Starting after I finish that major paper... heheheh.
The USB Toaster.
Plug it into your computer and you can put that picture of your dead Aunt Mary's left shoulder blade you've been saving right on your toast and eat it.
As cool as this thing is, I think everyone who actually spends whatever ridiculous price they charge for this item should be forced to spend an equal amount to a charity, just from sheer waste of money.
There are so many things that I feel guilty spending money on because I don't feel they're valuable - like textbooks - and I feel like so much of my life requires money. And I'm not talking about things of sentimental value, like flowers, because that's a great investment. If you at any point spend money for the good of someone else, like flowers, then that's amazing because it means you value that person's feelings more than money.
At the same time, however, money should be valued as a means of meeting basic needs for yourself and others. Keep in mind that money itself is not a need, it is merely a way of attaining needs. This was an idea invented by people so everyone could have different jobs and still eat.
Now we have rich people buying psychic toasters and poor people eating rice 3 times a week if they're lucky.
I'd much rather be the guy who first and foremost provided for his family, then helped provide for someone else and still sacrificed enough to buy his wife flowers.
I wouldn't even be able to eat a piece of toast with a picture on it, anyways.
Especially not if it was like a bunny or a baby or something.
Hmm, okay also because none of you read the little sidebar thing, I'm just going to start posting the joke of the week and the random link of the week and stuff as individual blogs...
Starting after I finish that major paper... heheheh.
11.28.2008
Word Count
I'm curious: how many times have I ever spoken the word 'the?'
I'll bet it's tons of times more than obscure words like marmalade and insubordination, and more similar to other articles ('a' and 'an') or conjunctions and super common colloquialisms like 'and' and 'so' and 'like' and 'really.'
I mean, I probably speak multiple thousands of words a day, and articles and conjunctions plus pronouns and names are the vast majority of the words.
Now, think about this.
The English language, the largest language by vocabulary that has EVER existed, has over 1 million words, not including different conjugations of the words.
The average high school grad has an active vocabulary of 15,000 words. 30,000 is recommended to get a good score on the SAT, and most college/grad students have near 40-60,000.
The estimated variety of language in Shakespeare indicates that he knew and used 18-25,000 different words in his collected works. Now, he wrote some amazing stuff, with some words that make absolutely no sense to me. His writing speaks of a depth of knowledge of the use of the English language, and he uses some very creative verbs in unique ways, and I generally find that he uses words that I do not see every day, and were probably similarly uncommon in his time. He was actually the first person to write a serious work of literature in English, which was considered the lower class language of the time compared to Latin and French, the languages of the court and the nobility.
Now, my question is this:
Why does modern art and literature and poetry SUCK in terms of literary creativity!
I'm not talking about coming up interesting things to say, I'm talking about using creative ways to say them.
I mean, seriously, when was the last time you heard a song or a poem that wasn't about a woman who left you or gazing at the sky or crying tears of joy or sorrow or whatever?
You could probably come up with a list of 500 words that if they were removed from the English language, we wouldn't be able to communicate at all, especially songwriters!!
Although that might be nice, because then maybe Bono would stop talking.
Among them, boring, too-many-meanings verbs like : set, have, do, and go.
A language with a MILLION WORDS ought to provide us with a better way to express what we want to communicate than the 3-6% that we actually use.
Maybe that's why no one understands anybody else; we learn a certain amount of words and then stop learning how to communicate.
I'll bet it's tons of times more than obscure words like marmalade and insubordination, and more similar to other articles ('a' and 'an') or conjunctions and super common colloquialisms like 'and' and 'so' and 'like' and 'really.'
I mean, I probably speak multiple thousands of words a day, and articles and conjunctions plus pronouns and names are the vast majority of the words.
Now, think about this.
The English language, the largest language by vocabulary that has EVER existed, has over 1 million words, not including different conjugations of the words.
The average high school grad has an active vocabulary of 15,000 words. 30,000 is recommended to get a good score on the SAT, and most college/grad students have near 40-60,000.
The estimated variety of language in Shakespeare indicates that he knew and used 18-25,000 different words in his collected works. Now, he wrote some amazing stuff, with some words that make absolutely no sense to me. His writing speaks of a depth of knowledge of the use of the English language, and he uses some very creative verbs in unique ways, and I generally find that he uses words that I do not see every day, and were probably similarly uncommon in his time. He was actually the first person to write a serious work of literature in English, which was considered the lower class language of the time compared to Latin and French, the languages of the court and the nobility.
Now, my question is this:
Why does modern art and literature and poetry SUCK in terms of literary creativity!
I'm not talking about coming up interesting things to say, I'm talking about using creative ways to say them.
I mean, seriously, when was the last time you heard a song or a poem that wasn't about a woman who left you or gazing at the sky or crying tears of joy or sorrow or whatever?
You could probably come up with a list of 500 words that if they were removed from the English language, we wouldn't be able to communicate at all, especially songwriters!!
Although that might be nice, because then maybe Bono would stop talking.
Among them, boring, too-many-meanings verbs like : set, have, do, and go.
A language with a MILLION WORDS ought to provide us with a better way to express what we want to communicate than the 3-6% that we actually use.
Maybe that's why no one understands anybody else; we learn a certain amount of words and then stop learning how to communicate.
11.19.2008
Catholic
So, I had a conference with a Roman Catholic speaker yesterday. He spoke on the Christian intellectual tradition.
For the record, I don't typically approve of Catholicism - partially because it screams of legalism to my angsty teenage mind, and partially because they put so much faith in their traditions and their strict lifestyles and so little emphasis on their passions.
I don't dislike Catholics, but I certainly feel like they are incredibly guilty of being hereditary Christians instead of choosing the faith intentionally. Obviously, there is some of this in evangelical and Protestant Christianity, as well, but it seems like the majority rather than the exception in Catholicism. Maybe this is just my perception instead of my knowledge.
Anyways, that's not the point.
I didn't agree with all that he said, but he responded to a question that I had in a very enlightened way.
All of you Jesus freaks who read this know that atheists and evolutionists and all of our non-Christian friends love to say that we don't have an objective point of view on science because we always look at stuff through our God perspective, so we can't ever say anything about science because we're biased.
I asked him whether or not our scientific approach was valid, that Christians can approach science from our point of view and still say something.
He responded by saying that while it is impossible to be truly objective, and that especially the atheists are not objective, the Christians were the ones who came up with the idea of objective point of view, and the ideals of science in the first place. People with faith in God are the only ones who can believe that the rules of the universe are consistent and unchanging, because God must have designed them that way. God is the only one who can break those rules, because He is all-powerful.
That makes so much sense to me. I think I'd heard it all before in separate parts, but hearing it all together so succinctly was just nice.
I know this post is really philosophical and up in the sky, but it's important to me to know this stuff.
I'll just rant on the wrongs of Catholicism later.
For the record, I don't typically approve of Catholicism - partially because it screams of legalism to my angsty teenage mind, and partially because they put so much faith in their traditions and their strict lifestyles and so little emphasis on their passions.
I don't dislike Catholics, but I certainly feel like they are incredibly guilty of being hereditary Christians instead of choosing the faith intentionally. Obviously, there is some of this in evangelical and Protestant Christianity, as well, but it seems like the majority rather than the exception in Catholicism. Maybe this is just my perception instead of my knowledge.
Anyways, that's not the point.
I didn't agree with all that he said, but he responded to a question that I had in a very enlightened way.
All of you Jesus freaks who read this know that atheists and evolutionists and all of our non-Christian friends love to say that we don't have an objective point of view on science because we always look at stuff through our God perspective, so we can't ever say anything about science because we're biased.
I asked him whether or not our scientific approach was valid, that Christians can approach science from our point of view and still say something.
He responded by saying that while it is impossible to be truly objective, and that especially the atheists are not objective, the Christians were the ones who came up with the idea of objective point of view, and the ideals of science in the first place. People with faith in God are the only ones who can believe that the rules of the universe are consistent and unchanging, because God must have designed them that way. God is the only one who can break those rules, because He is all-powerful.
That makes so much sense to me. I think I'd heard it all before in separate parts, but hearing it all together so succinctly was just nice.
I know this post is really philosophical and up in the sky, but it's important to me to know this stuff.
I'll just rant on the wrongs of Catholicism later.
11.16.2008
He is Mighty to Save
So, I was taken out to a concert on a date with my lovely girlfriend Kristen and some friends (Evan and Shantelle) Jeremy Camp and Jeff Johnson.
Jeff Johnson I had a lot of respect for as a fellow worship leader (not that I do that too much any more) and Jeremy Camp most Christians under the age of 30 in America know about.
Something happened while listening to Jeff Johnson that has not happened in a while: I enjoyed Mighty to Save.
You know the song. Everyone knows the song now. People can't stop playing it, which I don't mind, it's a fabulous song.
But I've stopped enjoying it.
People don't understand that song when they play it, and they BUTCHER the way the song is meant to be built up and emphasized. I've heard it played at my church back home in Dallas, and they play it the same way Hillsong does: They play the "shine your light and let the whole world sing" part like 4 million times, at maximum volume and strength.
Now, you can disagree with me, but I completely think that is the least important part of the song. They don't understand that all the choruses (or chori, whatever) are meant to be quiet and built up, like the verses, and then the bridge is supposed to be the SHORT interlude where it builds up momentum to the final chorus and we declare that He is Mighty to Save!
It's such an exciting song, and people recognize that, but they waste the emphasis on building up from a quiet start. Plus they play it way too fast.
Jeff Johnson was amazing at building and working through the song and he had some great stuff to say about it and it was powerful.
I kind of wish we had a bigger vocabulary of standard, everyone-knows-them-and-loves-them worship songs so people could just use them at the right moment and we'd have enough songs that one would always perfectly fit the mood.
This was like the second time that song has actually been at the right moment for me.
Also, Jeremy Camp is an amazing worship leader, which I totally did not expect. I hate his voice on the albums but he is powerful to hear.
Jeff Johnson I had a lot of respect for as a fellow worship leader (not that I do that too much any more) and Jeremy Camp most Christians under the age of 30 in America know about.
Something happened while listening to Jeff Johnson that has not happened in a while: I enjoyed Mighty to Save.
You know the song. Everyone knows the song now. People can't stop playing it, which I don't mind, it's a fabulous song.
But I've stopped enjoying it.
People don't understand that song when they play it, and they BUTCHER the way the song is meant to be built up and emphasized. I've heard it played at my church back home in Dallas, and they play it the same way Hillsong does: They play the "shine your light and let the whole world sing" part like 4 million times, at maximum volume and strength.
Now, you can disagree with me, but I completely think that is the least important part of the song. They don't understand that all the choruses (or chori, whatever) are meant to be quiet and built up, like the verses, and then the bridge is supposed to be the SHORT interlude where it builds up momentum to the final chorus and we declare that He is Mighty to Save!
It's such an exciting song, and people recognize that, but they waste the emphasis on building up from a quiet start. Plus they play it way too fast.
Jeff Johnson was amazing at building and working through the song and he had some great stuff to say about it and it was powerful.
I kind of wish we had a bigger vocabulary of standard, everyone-knows-them-and-loves-them worship songs so people could just use them at the right moment and we'd have enough songs that one would always perfectly fit the mood.
This was like the second time that song has actually been at the right moment for me.
Also, Jeremy Camp is an amazing worship leader, which I totally did not expect. I hate his voice on the albums but he is powerful to hear.
11.15.2008
I Am the Field of Wheat
My passions are so easily swayed.
I love so many things, as weird as that sounds.
I love guitar, I love bass guitar, I love piano, and lots of other instruments that I don't really play.
I love pencil sketching, it's my favorite type of art even though I'm terrible at it.
I love philosophy and theology and psychology and how they interrelate.
I love sports! I just never play as much as I want to. Volleyball, tennis, frisbee, and baseball are my favorites, not in that order.
I love big complicated math problems because when you solve them, it's just so satisfying.
I love dancing of all kinds, except the one where you hump the air, and I'm not so good at them, except the one where you hump the air, cuz that's easy.
I love building things, and arts and crafts projects.
I love writing stories and letters to friends.
I love foreign languages.
And no, as your 3rd grade Sunday school teacher will tell you, this isn't romantic love or agape love or Jesus and me love, it's "like," but I think it's passionate. I pursue these things.
I've just noticed a lot lately that whenever I see someone doing something that takes practice and is fun to do when you're good at it, I want to do it and get good at it.
Tonight it was the comical performing, I want to make something cool like that. A couple of weeks ago I had all these aspirations of amazing halloween costumes.
I just think there are so many cool things to do and I have the problem of trying to run in all the directions at once and I accomplish very little. But, at the same time, I do accomplish things, because while I'm excited about learning something, it's pretty much the only thing I think about, and I practice for hours.
I don't want to tie myself down and say I'm a guitar person or a tennis person, because I want to dabble in everything. I do admire those who find their one huge passion and get incredibly good at it. I just happen to be incredibly above average at a lot of things instead.
I enjoy it.
Don't get me wrong though, there are a few things which I never get distracted from.
I love so many things, as weird as that sounds.
I love guitar, I love bass guitar, I love piano, and lots of other instruments that I don't really play.
I love pencil sketching, it's my favorite type of art even though I'm terrible at it.
I love philosophy and theology and psychology and how they interrelate.
I love sports! I just never play as much as I want to. Volleyball, tennis, frisbee, and baseball are my favorites, not in that order.
I love big complicated math problems because when you solve them, it's just so satisfying.
I love dancing of all kinds, except the one where you hump the air, and I'm not so good at them, except the one where you hump the air, cuz that's easy.
I love building things, and arts and crafts projects.
I love writing stories and letters to friends.
I love foreign languages.
And no, as your 3rd grade Sunday school teacher will tell you, this isn't romantic love or agape love or Jesus and me love, it's "like," but I think it's passionate. I pursue these things.
I've just noticed a lot lately that whenever I see someone doing something that takes practice and is fun to do when you're good at it, I want to do it and get good at it.
Tonight it was the comical performing, I want to make something cool like that. A couple of weeks ago I had all these aspirations of amazing halloween costumes.
I just think there are so many cool things to do and I have the problem of trying to run in all the directions at once and I accomplish very little. But, at the same time, I do accomplish things, because while I'm excited about learning something, it's pretty much the only thing I think about, and I practice for hours.
I don't want to tie myself down and say I'm a guitar person or a tennis person, because I want to dabble in everything. I do admire those who find their one huge passion and get incredibly good at it. I just happen to be incredibly above average at a lot of things instead.
I enjoy it.
Don't get me wrong though, there are a few things which I never get distracted from.
11.13.2008
Now Speaking...
So, I love foreign languages.
It was actually my fourth passion, after guitarz, women, and God, in varying orders since high school.
One of the most interesting things about languages to me is that we think in terms of language, at least a large part of the time.
Do I think of the image of coffee when I smell coffee, or do I think, "Mmmm... coffee!"?
Part of that depends on our brain dispositions. The whole left brain/right brain and all that jazz.
But, to a certain extent, many of the deeper thoughts of human emotion and insight are quite impossible without words to express and represent our thoughts.
To that extent, our vocabulary is the limit of our universe.
Can you think of an image of something which you don't have a name for?
You might be able to, after some serious thought, but for the most part we have to label everything we interpret with our senses with a word.
So, in that sense, it creates a large barrier between us and those who speak a different language naturally, because their language focuses on different words and different patterns of thought.
For instance, Americans tend to be more direct and straight-forward in our language. We say things like "Let's go to the movies!" or "Please give me a soda." In an imperative sentence, a command, we assert that we have the right to ask something of someone else. Our language speaks a lot about our culture.
Now, I speak a very slight amount of Japanese. This is a very interesting language to me because it comes from a very old, very different culture. The Japanese, in case you didn't know, are very polite, with the exception of the current generation which is becoming very Americanized.
VERY polite.
They love their personal space and go to great lengths to respect others, even if it's only a matter of formality, because the culture dictates that they do so. The Chinese are fairly similar.
But this appears in Japanese language, as well.
If you asked someone, "Hey, let's go to the movies" in Japan, they might sarcastically reply, "Oh and do you want me to kill all of your enemies and rub your feet while I'm at it?!"
Well, okay, they probably wouldn't.
But they use the passive voice as a much more direct device than we do, which as many of you know is a serious NO-NO in English writing.
They would say, "Would it be nice to be attended at the movies this Friday?" or, "It would be wonderful if I were given a soda by you."
Sounds, weird, right?
But it's funny how little such language and cultural barriers affect personalities as a whole.
In every land and every tongue there are still cruel- and kind-hearted people, generous and stingy, hasty and patient.
It seems that language is more of a tool of our natures than what defines it.
Culture is just a shell.
Foreign languages are awesome, though. Especially if you learn romantic phrases to make your girlfriend smile.
It was actually my fourth passion, after guitarz, women, and God, in varying orders since high school.
One of the most interesting things about languages to me is that we think in terms of language, at least a large part of the time.
Do I think of the image of coffee when I smell coffee, or do I think, "Mmmm... coffee!"?
Part of that depends on our brain dispositions. The whole left brain/right brain and all that jazz.
But, to a certain extent, many of the deeper thoughts of human emotion and insight are quite impossible without words to express and represent our thoughts.
To that extent, our vocabulary is the limit of our universe.
Can you think of an image of something which you don't have a name for?
You might be able to, after some serious thought, but for the most part we have to label everything we interpret with our senses with a word.
So, in that sense, it creates a large barrier between us and those who speak a different language naturally, because their language focuses on different words and different patterns of thought.
For instance, Americans tend to be more direct and straight-forward in our language. We say things like "Let's go to the movies!" or "Please give me a soda." In an imperative sentence, a command, we assert that we have the right to ask something of someone else. Our language speaks a lot about our culture.
Now, I speak a very slight amount of Japanese. This is a very interesting language to me because it comes from a very old, very different culture. The Japanese, in case you didn't know, are very polite, with the exception of the current generation which is becoming very Americanized.
VERY polite.
They love their personal space and go to great lengths to respect others, even if it's only a matter of formality, because the culture dictates that they do so. The Chinese are fairly similar.
But this appears in Japanese language, as well.
If you asked someone, "Hey, let's go to the movies" in Japan, they might sarcastically reply, "Oh and do you want me to kill all of your enemies and rub your feet while I'm at it?!"
Well, okay, they probably wouldn't.
But they use the passive voice as a much more direct device than we do, which as many of you know is a serious NO-NO in English writing.
They would say, "Would it be nice to be attended at the movies this Friday?" or, "It would be wonderful if I were given a soda by you."
Sounds, weird, right?
But it's funny how little such language and cultural barriers affect personalities as a whole.
In every land and every tongue there are still cruel- and kind-hearted people, generous and stingy, hasty and patient.
It seems that language is more of a tool of our natures than what defines it.
Culture is just a shell.
Foreign languages are awesome, though. Especially if you learn romantic phrases to make your girlfriend smile.
11.12.2008
I never thought I'd say it... but I miss community college.
Okay, after the ridiculous process of trying to register for classes, I have officially decided upon some of the downsides of small, private universities.
I spent 30 minutes clicking 'refresh' for the log-in page of the school's intranet server to try and register for a class which had 1 spot remaining only to find that they had mislabeled the prerequisite courses for it and I couldn't sign up for it. Ironically, after an hour, that one spot is still open.
The other courses I could possibly have taken this semester are either already full or I don't meet the prerequisites for them, either. Meaning that I am taking a MAXIMUM of 14 hours next semester unless I do some serious griping at the office, which I may have to do.
The thing is, I miss how easy this process was at every other school I ever went to.
In high school, I could usually beg my way into most classes which were full.
High school was full of people who were driven about their grades, so anyone who wanted to get into a certain pre-AP or AP class could.
A&M had 13 sections of the same class and each class had a capacity of 400.
A&M was just full of people.
Community college gave you a bunch of smaller options and you could usually even get into a class that was full because someone would probably drop it before or during the semester and the spot would be open.
Community college was full of people who didn't care about school.
And now, at my humble little private university, which I love so much (no sarcasm, actually) I can't get into many of the classes that I want because they're all really good classes and people are excited about taking them so they probably won't drop.
Christian college is full of driven people but it's bigger than high school so I can't beg my way in.
Why can't the people at my school be more apathetic!! I wanna take Revelation book study!!!!
I could totally rant about how people, in their selfishness, want other people to be less successful so that they can have all the success... but I won't. Imagine I did, and praise me for my wisdom and insight, would you?
I spent 30 minutes clicking 'refresh' for the log-in page of the school's intranet server to try and register for a class which had 1 spot remaining only to find that they had mislabeled the prerequisite courses for it and I couldn't sign up for it. Ironically, after an hour, that one spot is still open.
The other courses I could possibly have taken this semester are either already full or I don't meet the prerequisites for them, either. Meaning that I am taking a MAXIMUM of 14 hours next semester unless I do some serious griping at the office, which I may have to do.
The thing is, I miss how easy this process was at every other school I ever went to.
In high school, I could usually beg my way into most classes which were full.
High school was full of people who were driven about their grades, so anyone who wanted to get into a certain pre-AP or AP class could.
A&M had 13 sections of the same class and each class had a capacity of 400.
A&M was just full of people.
Community college gave you a bunch of smaller options and you could usually even get into a class that was full because someone would probably drop it before or during the semester and the spot would be open.
Community college was full of people who didn't care about school.
And now, at my humble little private university, which I love so much (no sarcasm, actually) I can't get into many of the classes that I want because they're all really good classes and people are excited about taking them so they probably won't drop.
Christian college is full of driven people but it's bigger than high school so I can't beg my way in.
Why can't the people at my school be more apathetic!! I wanna take Revelation book study!!!!
I could totally rant about how people, in their selfishness, want other people to be less successful so that they can have all the success... but I won't. Imagine I did, and praise me for my wisdom and insight, would you?
11.08.2008
Mmm Friday.
So, I'm definitely looking forward to the rest of the weekend. It's been a long 3 or 4 days. I have a cold/sinus thing.
You know, we as Americans are full of excuses.
Whenever we do something wrong, we always have a justification for it.
My current justification is sickness.
I've heard so many excuses from people who have let me down, and given so many excuses when I make mistakes, that any time I hear one, I think it's really lame. Nobody takes the blame for anything.
My real accusation is that it isn't even necessary to make excuses.
And this includes valid excuses.
"My sister died so I'm sorry I forgot about hanging out with you" does invoke a sense of pity and understanding. Not that this has happened to me, but if it happened to someone I would probably not be mad.
But at the same time, there's a sense that we could still do something to improve the situation.
If someone just admits a fault (Oh, my jolly stars!!!) it grants them a lot more dignity and respect. We have such a need to be understood and make our point known that by making an excuse, we are so busy arguing for ourselves and wanting to feel justified that we totally forget that we have hurt someone else.
Making excuses also kind of puts up a wall between us and other people.
I feel so compelled to hide behind my image and not admit my own weaknesses, but at the same time being unable to be weak in front of another makes me lonely.
It's so funny that we are so eager to admit that humans aren't perfect. You know, when you're in a deep conversation with someone, that's easy to say. But it is so rare that someone simply admits fault once they have actually done something wrong.
So, here's a promise to myself: next time I screw up, admit it and then do better.
How great a testament is it if a person can have a crappy day and still work at meeting someone else's needs. Honor your obligations even when it's hard and you'll never have to make excuses. That takes some serious Holy Spirit juice.
Edited slightly after taking a shower. I always think well in the shower.
You know, we as Americans are full of excuses.
Whenever we do something wrong, we always have a justification for it.
My current justification is sickness.
I've heard so many excuses from people who have let me down, and given so many excuses when I make mistakes, that any time I hear one, I think it's really lame. Nobody takes the blame for anything.
My real accusation is that it isn't even necessary to make excuses.
And this includes valid excuses.
"My sister died so I'm sorry I forgot about hanging out with you" does invoke a sense of pity and understanding. Not that this has happened to me, but if it happened to someone I would probably not be mad.
But at the same time, there's a sense that we could still do something to improve the situation.
If someone just admits a fault (Oh, my jolly stars!!!) it grants them a lot more dignity and respect. We have such a need to be understood and make our point known that by making an excuse, we are so busy arguing for ourselves and wanting to feel justified that we totally forget that we have hurt someone else.
Making excuses also kind of puts up a wall between us and other people.
I feel so compelled to hide behind my image and not admit my own weaknesses, but at the same time being unable to be weak in front of another makes me lonely.
It's so funny that we are so eager to admit that humans aren't perfect. You know, when you're in a deep conversation with someone, that's easy to say. But it is so rare that someone simply admits fault once they have actually done something wrong.
So, here's a promise to myself: next time I screw up, admit it and then do better.
How great a testament is it if a person can have a crappy day and still work at meeting someone else's needs. Honor your obligations even when it's hard and you'll never have to make excuses. That takes some serious Holy Spirit juice.
Edited slightly after taking a shower. I always think well in the shower.
11.02.2008
Do Realize that Bread is like the Freakiest Thing on the Planet?
Yeah, bread is cooked with yeast, which is the stuff that makes it rise.
Yeast is actually a unicellular fungus. So, it's alive.
At least before we cook it.
I'm just glad it's asexual, so there isn't anything mating on my sandwich.
You know, there have to be so many foods that are divinely inspired or given to us by God himself, because that's just one of those things I know people would not come up with.
No person would ever look at a FUNGUS FROM THE OCEAN and a big grassy looking plant and think, "Hmm, maybe if I grind those all into powder with water and bake it, it'll be yummy!"
It's like that Calvin and Hobbes comic where Calvin is ranting and says, "Who was the guy who first looked at a cow's udder and said, 'I think I'll squeeze these and drink whatever comes out!"
Bill Watterson is a genius.
Anyways, it really disturbs me what is considered edible by the human digestive system.
Baked Fungus Wheat (aka bread, forevermore known as BFW), cottage and bleu cheese, tootsie rolls (which I recently discovered are about 50% wax) and BEANS!!! Ohhhh, I hate beans.
I don't understand how people eat the crazy stuff we do, and then we're afraid of germs and spiders and bird dookie. I just read an article that told me that there is a kind of coffee called Kopi Luwak which is made from cat poo or something like that.
But I am so hesitant to stick my hand in mud or grab a rusty pipe.
It's just a weird little contradiction of ours.
P.S. - I honestly would not drink the cat poo coffee.
Yeast is actually a unicellular fungus. So, it's alive.
At least before we cook it.
I'm just glad it's asexual, so there isn't anything mating on my sandwich.
You know, there have to be so many foods that are divinely inspired or given to us by God himself, because that's just one of those things I know people would not come up with.
No person would ever look at a FUNGUS FROM THE OCEAN and a big grassy looking plant and think, "Hmm, maybe if I grind those all into powder with water and bake it, it'll be yummy!"
It's like that Calvin and Hobbes comic where Calvin is ranting and says, "Who was the guy who first looked at a cow's udder and said, 'I think I'll squeeze these and drink whatever comes out!"
Bill Watterson is a genius.
Anyways, it really disturbs me what is considered edible by the human digestive system.
Baked Fungus Wheat (aka bread, forevermore known as BFW), cottage and bleu cheese, tootsie rolls (which I recently discovered are about 50% wax) and BEANS!!! Ohhhh, I hate beans.
I don't understand how people eat the crazy stuff we do, and then we're afraid of germs and spiders and bird dookie. I just read an article that told me that there is a kind of coffee called Kopi Luwak which is made from cat poo or something like that.
But I am so hesitant to stick my hand in mud or grab a rusty pipe.
It's just a weird little contradiction of ours.
P.S. - I honestly would not drink the cat poo coffee.
School Spirit
So, for all of you impatient people, this blog should be short.
I went to a school basketball game tonight. It was a ton of fun.
Now, I go to a really small private Christian college. I used to go to Texas A&M University, a huge, not-at-all-private-in-fact-they-don't-believe-in-privacy school.
Now, when most people think of A&M, they think of the Aggie tradition. I actually only recently found out what an Aggie is. It's short for Agricultural, which is the A in A&M. M is Mechanical.
Anyways, the traditions of the Aggies are numerous:
- every grade (freshman, sophomore) has it's own cry, which comes from these weird hunting references (whoop!)
- every month there is a big (2,000 people) ceremony to commemorate Aggies who have died in combat
- go to a football game, you'll run into about 500 traditions like yell leaders and the 12th man
And that's just the tip of the iceberg that I learned in just 4 months.
So, I go to this basketball game tonight at my tiny, relatively young school.
We have a couple of cool traditions, for starters. Since it was the first game of the season, we (all 300 students in the crowd) threw toilet paper on the court after we scored our first basket, which happened to be a 3-pointer, thank you very much. It was pretty crazy.
But something interesting happened tonight.
We started a tradition.
Now, it wasn't anything epic; we just made spirit fingers during a free throw for our team, and if we made it, we said, "whoosh!"
But still, the fact that we made a tradition in one night, spontaneously, without any sort of authority or decision by democratic system, is pretty cool.
It's one of the most sought-after human needs to be able to see a visible effect result from our actions. I want to matter. I want to change things. So do you.
I think big, massive, profitable, efficient things like giant schools or Wal-Mart, destroy the human feelings of importance.
It sounds like an obvious thing, but it's different to actually experience it.
I don't know who started that silly tradition, but I hope they feel important. Like they matter.
I went to a school basketball game tonight. It was a ton of fun.
Now, I go to a really small private Christian college. I used to go to Texas A&M University, a huge, not-at-all-private-in-fact-they-don't-believe-in-privacy school.
Now, when most people think of A&M, they think of the Aggie tradition. I actually only recently found out what an Aggie is. It's short for Agricultural, which is the A in A&M. M is Mechanical.
Anyways, the traditions of the Aggies are numerous:
- every grade (freshman, sophomore) has it's own cry, which comes from these weird hunting references (whoop!)
- every month there is a big (2,000 people) ceremony to commemorate Aggies who have died in combat
- go to a football game, you'll run into about 500 traditions like yell leaders and the 12th man
And that's just the tip of the iceberg that I learned in just 4 months.
So, I go to this basketball game tonight at my tiny, relatively young school.
We have a couple of cool traditions, for starters. Since it was the first game of the season, we (all 300 students in the crowd) threw toilet paper on the court after we scored our first basket, which happened to be a 3-pointer, thank you very much. It was pretty crazy.
But something interesting happened tonight.
We started a tradition.
Now, it wasn't anything epic; we just made spirit fingers during a free throw for our team, and if we made it, we said, "whoosh!"
But still, the fact that we made a tradition in one night, spontaneously, without any sort of authority or decision by democratic system, is pretty cool.
It's one of the most sought-after human needs to be able to see a visible effect result from our actions. I want to matter. I want to change things. So do you.
I think big, massive, profitable, efficient things like giant schools or Wal-Mart, destroy the human feelings of importance.
It sounds like an obvious thing, but it's different to actually experience it.
I don't know who started that silly tradition, but I hope they feel important. Like they matter.
10.30.2008
Animals of Fluffy Death
So, today I saw a roadrunner randomly skipping across the sidewalk.
For those of you who watched Loony Tunes as a kid, like me:
No, the roadrunner's legs do not run in complete circles.
It's really just like a less feathery peacock-looking thing with long legs. It has cute, long tailfeathers.
ANYWAYS.
This got me thinking.
Why aren't people afraid of animals anymore?
Like, sure, if a giant herd of angry things with teeth were rushing at us, we would be likely to feel a twinge of fear or two, but for the most part, in our thought lives, we have no great woes in regards to animals.
Originally, especially according to the evolutionist's perspective, mankind was completely weak and inferior to animals. We have no great muscle strength, no natural weapons like poison or horns, and no good ways of hiding ourselves. The only thing we had that made us superior to animals was our minds and our ability to innovate. So, eventually, we got sticks and made them pointy, as if we had those natural defenses that animals have. This put us on even ground more than it gave us a huge advantage. Surprisingly, we had strength in numbers in most cases, because the only animals we had to fear, predators, who were also typically mammals, don't reproduce as often as humans and tend to live in smaller societies. But somehow, eventually, we overcame them, and now, somehow, we are completely desensitized to the fear of animals we had in ages past.
When you go to the zoo, are you even impressed by sights such as a wild boar or an alligator? For the vast majority of human history, these were considered the things of fear. Now, the things we fear are the unknown: darkness, freaky unknown monsters, disease. Take the movie Jurassic Park, for example. This movie scared the Spiderman undies right off of my pre-pubescent bottom. The reason behind this is not because I thought that dinosaurs were really going to eat me, it was because they were more powerful than technology. You remember when the kid finds the night vision goggles, well all they do is show him the thing that's about to eat him. The hunter guy who eventually gets gobbled like a turkey in a Puritan cornfield, he has the most sophisticated rifle thing ever and all this high-tech stuff. When the technology was less powerful, suddenly the people were seen as weak. This is what creates the fear.
So, society today doesn't fear animals because we don't realize that we are weak anymore. We have so separated ourselves from nature that 99% of us don't even know how bad it is when wolves get into the sheep any more. I don't even know if I've ever seen a wolf up close. But I know that if I did, it would be a sedated, tame wolf in some zoo behind a glass window that gets fed bunny rabbits every morning. I think that if I was stuck in the gladiator's ring with a lion, it wouldn't even hit me how much trouble I was in until he started eating my face. I just don't even think about it.
The funny thing about our technology making us superior to animals is that the vast majority of our technology has nothing to do with overcoming animals. Do you think my iPod would deter a rhino from charging? The only thing my electric guitar does to animals is tick off my fat housecat.
So, is this good or bad?
Well, on the whole, honestly, I'd say it's good. Sure, we aren't afraid of animals anymore, but I don't necessarily think that that's a requirement. I'd say it's necessary that we respect them, because God put us in charge of them. He didn't say to do whatever we wanted with them, he said to be master over them. Science, while it has kind of stolen a bit of their thunder, does allow us to observe them and see their glory and magnificence in ways that weren't possible when our only concern was survival.
This, of course, is a choice.
I've been reading through the Chronicles of Narnia lately, as part of my homework for one of my classes, and I think it's interesting that Aslan is a lion. Why should the lion be the king of the jungle?
It's not because humans are afraid of lions automatically, or ever really were, because lions don't particularly like to hunt humans. It's because, due to our observation and study of lions, we recognize the respect that the rest of creation pays to them. They look magnificent and command respect.
Why should we, then be leader over the animals, if they are more diverse and powerful and grand than we ever will be?
I think it's because we have the potential, through use of our reason and innovation and intellect, to be wise and powerful and grand, which is the reflection of God that mankind was naturally endowed with. Keep in mind though, that this is just potential. When I look at the rest of creation, I feel weak and insignificant, and honestly, I should. I am weak, even among men, and I am not cunning as the serpent nor graceful as a horse nor as firm and unrelenting as a great oak nor as powerful as a flowing river, which can break a mountain, but I also have potential to destroy all of these things. Man's capacity to choose in combination with his intelligence makes him the only creature that can choose to keep creation alive. But I also have the potential to cultivate it and admire it's magnificence.
Now, this is not me advocating environmentalism.
The earth is here to be used.
Just not wasted. Not ignored.
I'm rambling now, so I'll close with this:
God didn't intend for mankind to be some great powerful creature who forces all to submit to his great will and awesome power, He set up a weak creature to choose either wise rulership or disdain. So, maybe we should fear the animals a little bit, because humanity is fragile. We're just too proud to recognize it.
For those of you who watched Loony Tunes as a kid, like me:
No, the roadrunner's legs do not run in complete circles.
It's really just like a less feathery peacock-looking thing with long legs. It has cute, long tailfeathers.
ANYWAYS.
This got me thinking.
Why aren't people afraid of animals anymore?
Like, sure, if a giant herd of angry things with teeth were rushing at us, we would be likely to feel a twinge of fear or two, but for the most part, in our thought lives, we have no great woes in regards to animals.
Originally, especially according to the evolutionist's perspective, mankind was completely weak and inferior to animals. We have no great muscle strength, no natural weapons like poison or horns, and no good ways of hiding ourselves. The only thing we had that made us superior to animals was our minds and our ability to innovate. So, eventually, we got sticks and made them pointy, as if we had those natural defenses that animals have. This put us on even ground more than it gave us a huge advantage. Surprisingly, we had strength in numbers in most cases, because the only animals we had to fear, predators, who were also typically mammals, don't reproduce as often as humans and tend to live in smaller societies. But somehow, eventually, we overcame them, and now, somehow, we are completely desensitized to the fear of animals we had in ages past.
When you go to the zoo, are you even impressed by sights such as a wild boar or an alligator? For the vast majority of human history, these were considered the things of fear. Now, the things we fear are the unknown: darkness, freaky unknown monsters, disease. Take the movie Jurassic Park, for example. This movie scared the Spiderman undies right off of my pre-pubescent bottom. The reason behind this is not because I thought that dinosaurs were really going to eat me, it was because they were more powerful than technology. You remember when the kid finds the night vision goggles, well all they do is show him the thing that's about to eat him. The hunter guy who eventually gets gobbled like a turkey in a Puritan cornfield, he has the most sophisticated rifle thing ever and all this high-tech stuff. When the technology was less powerful, suddenly the people were seen as weak. This is what creates the fear.
So, society today doesn't fear animals because we don't realize that we are weak anymore. We have so separated ourselves from nature that 99% of us don't even know how bad it is when wolves get into the sheep any more. I don't even know if I've ever seen a wolf up close. But I know that if I did, it would be a sedated, tame wolf in some zoo behind a glass window that gets fed bunny rabbits every morning. I think that if I was stuck in the gladiator's ring with a lion, it wouldn't even hit me how much trouble I was in until he started eating my face. I just don't even think about it.
The funny thing about our technology making us superior to animals is that the vast majority of our technology has nothing to do with overcoming animals. Do you think my iPod would deter a rhino from charging? The only thing my electric guitar does to animals is tick off my fat housecat.
So, is this good or bad?
Well, on the whole, honestly, I'd say it's good. Sure, we aren't afraid of animals anymore, but I don't necessarily think that that's a requirement. I'd say it's necessary that we respect them, because God put us in charge of them. He didn't say to do whatever we wanted with them, he said to be master over them. Science, while it has kind of stolen a bit of their thunder, does allow us to observe them and see their glory and magnificence in ways that weren't possible when our only concern was survival.
This, of course, is a choice.
I've been reading through the Chronicles of Narnia lately, as part of my homework for one of my classes, and I think it's interesting that Aslan is a lion. Why should the lion be the king of the jungle?
It's not because humans are afraid of lions automatically, or ever really were, because lions don't particularly like to hunt humans. It's because, due to our observation and study of lions, we recognize the respect that the rest of creation pays to them. They look magnificent and command respect.
Why should we, then be leader over the animals, if they are more diverse and powerful and grand than we ever will be?
I think it's because we have the potential, through use of our reason and innovation and intellect, to be wise and powerful and grand, which is the reflection of God that mankind was naturally endowed with. Keep in mind though, that this is just potential. When I look at the rest of creation, I feel weak and insignificant, and honestly, I should. I am weak, even among men, and I am not cunning as the serpent nor graceful as a horse nor as firm and unrelenting as a great oak nor as powerful as a flowing river, which can break a mountain, but I also have potential to destroy all of these things. Man's capacity to choose in combination with his intelligence makes him the only creature that can choose to keep creation alive. But I also have the potential to cultivate it and admire it's magnificence.
Now, this is not me advocating environmentalism.
The earth is here to be used.
Just not wasted. Not ignored.
I'm rambling now, so I'll close with this:
God didn't intend for mankind to be some great powerful creature who forces all to submit to his great will and awesome power, He set up a weak creature to choose either wise rulership or disdain. So, maybe we should fear the animals a little bit, because humanity is fragile. We're just too proud to recognize it.
10.27.2008
A Sidenote...
For the record, I promise to never never never EVER EVER EVER post weird poetry and expect you to interpret the inner meanings of my soul and how it burns with the flame of a thousand stars and is bewildered by the the depression of a crumbling society saturated with sinful psychopathy...
I would never rhyme about the music in my soul
That fills every hole
Or talk about my mole
Or alliterate avidly about droll
Subjects that I cry about at night
Or speak about the plight
Left in me by some girl
I had a crush on in 3rd grade.
I got plenty of love as a child.
I just don't work that way.
I would never rhyme about the music in my soul
That fills every hole
Or talk about my mole
Or alliterate avidly about droll
Subjects that I cry about at night
Or speak about the plight
Left in me by some girl
I had a crush on in 3rd grade.
I got plenty of love as a child.
I just don't work that way.
Today
So, I have decided to get back into this. I used to have 20 or 30 people (it's a ton, I know) read my deepest thoughts! Usually about dating, since I was obsessed with that in high school. This blog will probably be a different story, not that I have somehow lost my appreciation for women but that they are not my primary pursuit in life.
At least, I hope I've grown up since high school.
I'm a college student, and since many of you who will end up reading this likely know that, I'll tell you a little bit more that you might not know.
I get terribly nervous speaking in public sometimes, and I say stupid things, which is obviously something I am working on, but when I'm writing I have a clarity that doesn't really come out in my speech. I have a much better vocabulary, for instance, and I tend to look back and assess what I've said before I declare my final answer, Jeopardy-style. So, on the whole, you could say that I am a different person behind the keyboard, but I prefer thinking of myself as better prepared for emotional depth behind the keyboard. I tend to observe others before jumping in to conversation, but when I do, I do so boisterously and whole-heartedly. But, I also save most of my thoughts for myself and rarely speak them blatantly.
I am fairly far away at college, farther away than I have ever permanently lived from my original home, but that really doesn't affect me like it does some of the others. I'm older, and I've been through this before.
Despite the mood of this particular entry, I am seldom a completely serious person. I prefer satire to sophistication, any day. (Hey, I just came up with that myself; it's pretty catchy)
I think I'll try to motivate myself to update the joke of the week and a few little things I read about or hear about on the sidebar over there, but no promises. I'll also try to update this blog about 4 times a week. Wish me luck.
So, aside from this little intro, I leave you with a question. One that I actually wrote a paper on just today.
Does the law encourage people to be good?
I ponder this because of something I caught myself doing, today.
I caught myself doing homework.
Now, this may not seem like an over-the-top suggestion, but let's face it, I coasted through high school. I passed because I get good test grades, and I barely ever did my homework.
So, now that I am in college, I realize this isn't exactly an option. Fortunately, I realized it without suffering the consequences, which gives me hope for my psychological state.
The correlation between these two, however, is this:
Do I do my homework because I want to learn or because I don't want to fail my classes?
Do people obey the law because they want to be good people, or because they don't want to suffer the consequences of breaking the law?
If I do my homework to get good grades, then it follows that whenever an assignment is not necessary for my grade, I don't do it.
If I slow down in a school zone because I know cops patrol school zones (you KNOW you do this, too) then it follows that if they took away the signs, I would speed by schools at 4:00 and kill people daily.
People in American society, and I assume other societies as well, see laws as obstacles, instead of good things. Why are there laws? Because laws support the ideal life of the human race. They prevent chaos and immorality because living without chaos and immorality is the way that humans were designed to live. But teaching that if you break a law, you will be punished almost encourages us to believe that if we can avoid the law and still get what we want, it is okay. If, instead, we propagated the idea that by following the law we do a good service to ourselves and others, we psychologically train people to see the law as a good thing.
I would rather have good people who obeyed the law than bad people who were restrained from bad deeds by the law. Wouldn't you?
That's all I have to say about that.
At least, I hope I've grown up since high school.
I'm a college student, and since many of you who will end up reading this likely know that, I'll tell you a little bit more that you might not know.
I get terribly nervous speaking in public sometimes, and I say stupid things, which is obviously something I am working on, but when I'm writing I have a clarity that doesn't really come out in my speech. I have a much better vocabulary, for instance, and I tend to look back and assess what I've said before I declare my final answer, Jeopardy-style. So, on the whole, you could say that I am a different person behind the keyboard, but I prefer thinking of myself as better prepared for emotional depth behind the keyboard. I tend to observe others before jumping in to conversation, but when I do, I do so boisterously and whole-heartedly. But, I also save most of my thoughts for myself and rarely speak them blatantly.
I am fairly far away at college, farther away than I have ever permanently lived from my original home, but that really doesn't affect me like it does some of the others. I'm older, and I've been through this before.
Despite the mood of this particular entry, I am seldom a completely serious person. I prefer satire to sophistication, any day. (Hey, I just came up with that myself; it's pretty catchy)
I think I'll try to motivate myself to update the joke of the week and a few little things I read about or hear about on the sidebar over there, but no promises. I'll also try to update this blog about 4 times a week. Wish me luck.
So, aside from this little intro, I leave you with a question. One that I actually wrote a paper on just today.
Does the law encourage people to be good?
I ponder this because of something I caught myself doing, today.
I caught myself doing homework.
Now, this may not seem like an over-the-top suggestion, but let's face it, I coasted through high school. I passed because I get good test grades, and I barely ever did my homework.
So, now that I am in college, I realize this isn't exactly an option. Fortunately, I realized it without suffering the consequences, which gives me hope for my psychological state.
The correlation between these two, however, is this:
Do I do my homework because I want to learn or because I don't want to fail my classes?
Do people obey the law because they want to be good people, or because they don't want to suffer the consequences of breaking the law?
If I do my homework to get good grades, then it follows that whenever an assignment is not necessary for my grade, I don't do it.
If I slow down in a school zone because I know cops patrol school zones (you KNOW you do this, too) then it follows that if they took away the signs, I would speed by schools at 4:00 and kill people daily.
People in American society, and I assume other societies as well, see laws as obstacles, instead of good things. Why are there laws? Because laws support the ideal life of the human race. They prevent chaos and immorality because living without chaos and immorality is the way that humans were designed to live. But teaching that if you break a law, you will be punished almost encourages us to believe that if we can avoid the law and still get what we want, it is okay. If, instead, we propagated the idea that by following the law we do a good service to ourselves and others, we psychologically train people to see the law as a good thing.
I would rather have good people who obeyed the law than bad people who were restrained from bad deeds by the law. Wouldn't you?
That's all I have to say about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
