Pay attention to the main theme at 0:38, though it recurs throughout the piece. Now compare:
Pay attention to the intro...
Maybe it's me, but the resemblence is uncanny.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Contemporary Influences in "Classical" music?
So I had been listening to KDFC (the Bay Area classical station) for a little bit and they introduced me to a modern Italian composer named Ludovico Einaudi. Einaudi's compositional style actually reminds me a little of George Winston, who I don't really construe as "classical", but since the station thinks it is (I guess he does more chamber stuff?) we call it that. Einaudi does all forms of composition but I think primarily does piano stuff with maybe some strings on the side. When I first heard a Ludovico Einaudi song though, I was reminded not of classical, but of a rather modern pop song... Perhaps Einaudi enjoys listening to that sort of thing...? Dunno. You see for yourself.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
On Appreciating: Life
So, I haven't posted here in a while, and I decided that since it's the Thanksgiving season, I really ought to think about how I can be grateful for the things that I have. When I start to come up with a list of what it is I have to be thankful for, there seems to be a lot. Then I remembered I was doing this thing, and felt, maybe I should share about being thankful. I think thankfulness is definitely something that's pretty hard to come by sometimes, and that it's definitely something that doesn't come naturally. It's something that I need to continually practice and that I am continually trying to practice. I hope that these few things that I've learned help you out too. Being thankful in general, I think, is the major way to appreciate life, to me, by appreciating something, you're saying, "I'm glad or thankful that this thing is here." I don't know that I'm an expert on appreciation, but I feel that life as a whole is something to be appreciated, and here are a few ways how.
First, start with the little things. There are a lot of things that I tend to take for granted and honestly, if I stop and think about it, they're really quite a luxury. In fact, a lot (most) of the things I have that I consider mine by right are really something of a privilege. My family, my friends, my car, my home, etc... even little things down to "common courtesy" that people extend to me. An exercise that I do daily that really helps me is to think of one thing to be thankful about, doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't have to be anything big, philosophical, or grandiose, but just a simple, "I'm grateful today for the phone call I had with my parents the other day." Something like that, and then answer the simple question that naturally follows; why?
Another way is to know where things come from. Gratitude doesn't really make much sense unless there's a someone or something to be grateful to. Remembering to be thankful really entails remembering those who have given or done things for you. Things mean a lot more if there's a name and face you can attach to them, that name and face being the source. Of course there are intangibles, but ultimately, all of that comes back to God, who is the provider of all things. While we ought to appreciate the gifts that are given to us, it's ultimately more important to appreciate the giver giving it.
Finally, one thing that I definitely have a hard time doing consistently, gratitude doesn't really mean a whole lot until it's expressed. I know it's hard for me to say or express thanks to people except in kind of special circumstances. It feels kind of awkward, but if we can step past that, by expressing gratitude, it really helps lift someone up. It's really good to know that someone is grateful for something done for them, I like it when people thank me for something. In the same way then, in being thankful, I need to show people I'm thankful to that I'm thankful.
Well, this is my little Thanksgiving spiel, sorry that I haven't posting with regularity to those that are following this. Hope you guys all have a great and wonderful Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Mathletics: The Bane of Simple Reasoning
Maybe it's just me, and the fact that I didn't go into a math related field of study or profession. As a young child, I was subject to a lot of various math competitions, such as Math Olympiads, and I went to a lot of various classes ("summer programs") which my parents enrolled me in to improve my math and problem solving abilities. The word problems hence were designed to be tricky and convoluted in the methodology of solving it. It's effective in enabling the student to handle high capacity mental challenges, and complicated calculations and logical trains of thought. However, the problem with that is, that it conditions the student also (at least it did for me) to always look for the complicated answer first. The nature of the problems always encourages students to try the complicated or "hard" way first because the painfully and obviously "easy" way is always wrong or doesn't work. Better to start with the convoluted method that almost always guarantees a sensible answer of some sort than the simple method that potentially could result in a dead end.
I don't know, this is sort of an epiphany to me I guess... It is I suppose in the light of taking the GMATs, the math isn't really very difficult, but I feel like I would be doing better on it if it were. The problem that is created is that Math Olympiads and problems of the sort promote over-thinking of exceptionally simple problems. This perhaps explains why some exceptionally brilliant mathematical minds seem to always underperform when it comes to standardized testing. I'm not by any means saying that my mind exudes mathematical brilliance, far from it, I believe I have a very average notion of mathematics and things of the sort. However, having grown up with this kind of problem solving training, I definitely believe that my initial reaction or move to solve any problem is to make it more complicatd than necessary.
In conclusion: mathletics isn't necessarily bad, certainly there are merits to being a mathlete, and benefits in scholastic achievement. However, make sure you supplement it with simple problem solving too. Otherwise, don't be overly surprised if the SATs or something sometimes seem like its jipping you out of something.
I don't know, this is sort of an epiphany to me I guess... It is I suppose in the light of taking the GMATs, the math isn't really very difficult, but I feel like I would be doing better on it if it were. The problem that is created is that Math Olympiads and problems of the sort promote over-thinking of exceptionally simple problems. This perhaps explains why some exceptionally brilliant mathematical minds seem to always underperform when it comes to standardized testing. I'm not by any means saying that my mind exudes mathematical brilliance, far from it, I believe I have a very average notion of mathematics and things of the sort. However, having grown up with this kind of problem solving training, I definitely believe that my initial reaction or move to solve any problem is to make it more complicatd than necessary.
In conclusion: mathletics isn't necessarily bad, certainly there are merits to being a mathlete, and benefits in scholastic achievement. However, make sure you supplement it with simple problem solving too. Otherwise, don't be overly surprised if the SATs or something sometimes seem like its jipping you out of something.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
I Think I Like Writing
I do, I really do.
Ever since getting on the blog scene, I've been pretty content with doing this sort of stuff fairly regularly, enough so that I've casually considered a career shift that would enable me to get paid to do something like this. Wouldn't that be swell. The problem in and of itself, I suppose, most often isn't necessarily the desire to write, I'd have a new post every other hour if I could, but the simple fact of the matter is that I don't really have that much to write about sometimes. I suppose it's something rather natural, something known as "writers' block". It happens to me fairly frequently, and thus I don't have anything to come out with. Specifically though, I like this form of communicative writing that enables to me to in a sense "converse" with people through the screen. One of the quirks (I like to think of it as a quirk) is that the way in which I write is something that I would actually say to people. I hope that it reads more like something of a conversation than anything of an academic work or something. Of course, it could just be the case that my conversation is always stodgy and uptight.
It's not that I haven't tried the whole writing thing before, I've actually made a foray at attempting to write a novel, specifically in the fantasy genre. Unfortunately, my narrative is somewhat lacking and my ideas a little unoriginal, so that didn't go very far. As you few readers who look through this blog have realized, I don't really have all that much to write about content wise, hence the lack of posts. My NBA blog I update extensively and regularly, though I don't know that I'll be anything of an expert nor would I be anywhere near I think getting paid to do that. Likewise for cooking, sans the regular updating thing.
All in all, I think I've found another thing I like, but I don't know that I could make a living of it. I've pondered the option of journalism, but that would require me to go back and redo school, which is something I don't know if I'm necessarily inclined to do, or maybe supplement with something of a communications focus, perhaps that's another option. However, I don't know that I'd be a very good columnist save for an opinion article here and there. It hasn't been explored extensively, but then again, I don't know that many of my hobbies and viable career options have been.
So, yeah, in conclusion; I like writing, I just don't have a lot to write about sometimes. I think.
Ever since getting on the blog scene, I've been pretty content with doing this sort of stuff fairly regularly, enough so that I've casually considered a career shift that would enable me to get paid to do something like this. Wouldn't that be swell. The problem in and of itself, I suppose, most often isn't necessarily the desire to write, I'd have a new post every other hour if I could, but the simple fact of the matter is that I don't really have that much to write about sometimes. I suppose it's something rather natural, something known as "writers' block". It happens to me fairly frequently, and thus I don't have anything to come out with. Specifically though, I like this form of communicative writing that enables to me to in a sense "converse" with people through the screen. One of the quirks (I like to think of it as a quirk) is that the way in which I write is something that I would actually say to people. I hope that it reads more like something of a conversation than anything of an academic work or something. Of course, it could just be the case that my conversation is always stodgy and uptight.
It's not that I haven't tried the whole writing thing before, I've actually made a foray at attempting to write a novel, specifically in the fantasy genre. Unfortunately, my narrative is somewhat lacking and my ideas a little unoriginal, so that didn't go very far. As you few readers who look through this blog have realized, I don't really have all that much to write about content wise, hence the lack of posts. My NBA blog I update extensively and regularly, though I don't know that I'll be anything of an expert nor would I be anywhere near I think getting paid to do that. Likewise for cooking, sans the regular updating thing.
All in all, I think I've found another thing I like, but I don't know that I could make a living of it. I've pondered the option of journalism, but that would require me to go back and redo school, which is something I don't know if I'm necessarily inclined to do, or maybe supplement with something of a communications focus, perhaps that's another option. However, I don't know that I'd be a very good columnist save for an opinion article here and there. It hasn't been explored extensively, but then again, I don't know that many of my hobbies and viable career options have been.
So, yeah, in conclusion; I like writing, I just don't have a lot to write about sometimes. I think.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
I Don't Get "Professional Writing"
So, I don't mean professional writing in the sense of like authors who write books, or journalists who write news columns or anything in the sense that your writing is what makes you money. What I do mean, though, is the whole idea of how to write a professional looking document with all the fancy language and the non-use of personal identifiers, and how it has to "sound professional". Basically, like all those papers we had to write for school. This comes in light of my studying for the GMATs and doing a review on the essay section.
Maybe there's a certain merit to looking all polished and such, but given the context of the GMAT the purpose is primarily for communication anyways. Sure, I'd be less inclined to utilize slang, and such terminology, but I'm a little baffled by all this pretense. Why can't I write it like I write this blog? I probably communicate just as if not more effectively this way, and if people were to come talk to me about whatever it is I'm writing about, then I'd probably explain things the way I'm explaining them now. I don't get it.
That's my gripe for the day, I'm done. It's just how things work, and I suppose I have to deal.
Maybe there's a certain merit to looking all polished and such, but given the context of the GMAT the purpose is primarily for communication anyways. Sure, I'd be less inclined to utilize slang, and such terminology, but I'm a little baffled by all this pretense. Why can't I write it like I write this blog? I probably communicate just as if not more effectively this way, and if people were to come talk to me about whatever it is I'm writing about, then I'd probably explain things the way I'm explaining them now. I don't get it.
That's my gripe for the day, I'm done. It's just how things work, and I suppose I have to deal.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Current Reads
Finished up with some, but still working on most of the same ones. Added a couple new ones to the list, but with GMATs and everything else going on, I've been a little preoccupied.
Finished Good Life, excellent book, highly recommend everyone read it.
Current Reads about Life:
The Four Loves by CS Lewis
The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard
The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoffer
Current Reads just for fun:
Eulalia by Brian Jacques
The Elfstones of Shannara by Terry Brooks
Finished Good Life, excellent book, highly recommend everyone read it.
Current Reads about Life:
The Four Loves by CS Lewis
The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard
The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoffer
Current Reads just for fun:
Eulalia by Brian Jacques
The Elfstones of Shannara by Terry Brooks
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
All or Nothing
Something I've been thinking about a little while is the idea of compartmentalization. I think it's something that happens because we feel like we need to organize our lives. I don't think I exactly thought of it this way though. If you think of the idea of "big picture/little picture" thinkers then come to the idea of compartmentalization then maybe you get a little closer to what I'm thinking about. Hopefully this conveys my thoughts on the issue adequately, but of course, I doubt my communication abilities do my theories much justice, then again, perhaps there's not much to be had from such theorizing, regardless, I appreciate the time that you (the reader) take to peruse and consider what I have to say (write) and the attempt (however meager) made to understand my point.
We live a world where everything needs to have a time and place, everything is categorized, filed, and organized accordingly. If you go to a store, items are sorted by type and arranged accordingly, in a music store there is a guitar section, an acoustic section, a bass section, a live sound section, a keyboard section, a recording section, a miscellaneous items section, etc... in a supermarket there is the fresh produce section, canned goods, dairy, frozen foods, meat, juices, beverages, etc... Likewise, we've been encouraged to perform such organization with our lives, and to some extent it's helpful, we have work, school, recreational hobbies, family, friends, and various other things in our lives that we can make various categories for. We take each experience and then neatly file it away under a specific category in our lives. In some instances, things might fall under a couple of categories which might make things a little messier, but it's still manageable nonetheless.
The problem with this view is that life invariably is more than the sum of its parts, and there are things that call from us our entire being, not just a part. The "here and now"s of life require our everything, and if we're not all here, then invariably we miss out on something. Not to say that we ought not look at the future and plan what may be had, but we ought not be reserved or hesitant because of what "might be". When we start planning based on hypotheticals, then we start holding ourselves back, we miss out. Life will be that much sweeter if we learn to immerse ourselves in what we have now as opposed to what we might have in the future.
Maybe I'm being "irresponsible", but I think the fact of the matter is, that we live in the here and now. There's no point in fretting over something that hasn't happened yet, in fact something that might not even happen. I don't know what's going to happen, plans have changed for me several times, I've gotten it wrong enough times to know; I miss out of I hold back now. I feel like that I cheat myself of a lot if I don't. Hopefully this made sense to whoever is reading it. I hope.
We live a world where everything needs to have a time and place, everything is categorized, filed, and organized accordingly. If you go to a store, items are sorted by type and arranged accordingly, in a music store there is a guitar section, an acoustic section, a bass section, a live sound section, a keyboard section, a recording section, a miscellaneous items section, etc... in a supermarket there is the fresh produce section, canned goods, dairy, frozen foods, meat, juices, beverages, etc... Likewise, we've been encouraged to perform such organization with our lives, and to some extent it's helpful, we have work, school, recreational hobbies, family, friends, and various other things in our lives that we can make various categories for. We take each experience and then neatly file it away under a specific category in our lives. In some instances, things might fall under a couple of categories which might make things a little messier, but it's still manageable nonetheless.
The problem with this view is that life invariably is more than the sum of its parts, and there are things that call from us our entire being, not just a part. The "here and now"s of life require our everything, and if we're not all here, then invariably we miss out on something. Not to say that we ought not look at the future and plan what may be had, but we ought not be reserved or hesitant because of what "might be". When we start planning based on hypotheticals, then we start holding ourselves back, we miss out. Life will be that much sweeter if we learn to immerse ourselves in what we have now as opposed to what we might have in the future.
Maybe I'm being "irresponsible", but I think the fact of the matter is, that we live in the here and now. There's no point in fretting over something that hasn't happened yet, in fact something that might not even happen. I don't know what's going to happen, plans have changed for me several times, I've gotten it wrong enough times to know; I miss out of I hold back now. I feel like that I cheat myself of a lot if I don't. Hopefully this made sense to whoever is reading it. I hope.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Beyond Simply Patience
I haven't written much recently, and perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing. In some respects I suppose I'm my own harshest critic and therefore my own worst censor. On the other hand a lot of random junk doesn't get thrown up here because of it, and perhaps it's better that way, the Internet already has enough of that already. Then again, this could possibly be construed as random junk. Anyways, I think I probably already wrote about this somewhere, I have the recollection of doing so, but I want to revisit this simply because it's something that I feel like God has been pounding into me again and again.
Over the past 20-some years of my life I've had 4 major relocations. That's not a lot by any stretch of the imagination, I know people that have jumped from country to country throughout their childhood, however, it's enough. My most recent and shortest relocation being moving approximately 850 miles south from Seattle to the Silicon Valley. The furthest relocation being a 7600 mile move from cozy old Niskayuna, NY to Hsin-Chu, Taiwan for two-and-a-half years, and then an about face and back. In the middle is a 2800 mile move from Niskayuna to Seattle for college. Within the course of the past 4 years or so I've had to move a good 9-10 times within the local area, so I'm pretty familiar with the whole moving process and all that. So what's this have to do with anything?
I think the major thing that I've learned from the frequent movement is that I really can't take anything for granted. Furthermore, I can't afford to be idle, lest time pass me by and take away whatever opportunity that I may have had for growth and development of relationships. God put me in each and every situation for a reason, and for that reason I'm there. It's no good to sit and ponder if I should be somewhere else, and even if I plan to be somewhere else, I'm here now. I don't know if I'm being clear, but the lesson is this, make the most of what you have now. I may not plan on being where I am a year, maybe two years from now, I may more may not see my plan through for various reasons. However, any time I hold back because I don't plan on being here, I'm losing out. Any time I spend worrying about what may be is a moment lost in the here and now. If I say, "I'm not going to commit to anything because it's only short-term" then in essence I idle away whatever time that "short-term" period denotes. If that's not a waste of time I don't know what is. I am where I am, I need to make the most of what's in front of me.
Over the past 20-some years of my life I've had 4 major relocations. That's not a lot by any stretch of the imagination, I know people that have jumped from country to country throughout their childhood, however, it's enough. My most recent and shortest relocation being moving approximately 850 miles south from Seattle to the Silicon Valley. The furthest relocation being a 7600 mile move from cozy old Niskayuna, NY to Hsin-Chu, Taiwan for two-and-a-half years, and then an about face and back. In the middle is a 2800 mile move from Niskayuna to Seattle for college. Within the course of the past 4 years or so I've had to move a good 9-10 times within the local area, so I'm pretty familiar with the whole moving process and all that. So what's this have to do with anything?
I think the major thing that I've learned from the frequent movement is that I really can't take anything for granted. Furthermore, I can't afford to be idle, lest time pass me by and take away whatever opportunity that I may have had for growth and development of relationships. God put me in each and every situation for a reason, and for that reason I'm there. It's no good to sit and ponder if I should be somewhere else, and even if I plan to be somewhere else, I'm here now. I don't know if I'm being clear, but the lesson is this, make the most of what you have now. I may not plan on being where I am a year, maybe two years from now, I may more may not see my plan through for various reasons. However, any time I hold back because I don't plan on being here, I'm losing out. Any time I spend worrying about what may be is a moment lost in the here and now. If I say, "I'm not going to commit to anything because it's only short-term" then in essence I idle away whatever time that "short-term" period denotes. If that's not a waste of time I don't know what is. I am where I am, I need to make the most of what's in front of me.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
A Thought on "Personality" Tests
By "personality" test I'm generally referring to something along the lines of Myers-Brigg assessment or the Carl Jung test or something along those lines. Those four random letters that people seem to spout that supposedly tells you everything about them. Are you ISFJ? ENTP? INFP? ESTJ? BXYQ? ASDF? It seems kind of ridiculous after a while, yet a lot of people get really into it and some people make a pretty big deal out of it. I've taken a number of them before, I've been everything from ISFJ to INTP, though most consistently I'm something of an INTP, and I suppose it fairly accurately describes me, but a lot of it seems to something of posturing as well. Honestly, I don't really see how any of this really counts for a whole lot. Certainly it's a form of behavioral sciences to an extent, but simply put it's trying to define us by what we do. I must be an "I" because I am more frequently alone than with other people. I must be an "E" because I enjoy being at the center of attention at times. Sure I think it has its merits, it allows us to understand tendencies and the patterns in which people behave to better help us interact with one another, but honestly, do we really need it?
At what point does it vary from "oh, that's just his/her personality" to being some kind of cop out for a means of behavior? I feel like a lot of times we live in a society where if we can explain something that makes it okay, regardless of the consequences. We live in a society of justification, if you can spout off enough reasons that smatters of legitimacy, if you can convince enough people that your case was something of an exception, or that you were in an extenuating circumstance then anything is permissable then you are always right. If you want it put shortly, we live a society of lawyers. Not to say all lawyers are like that, however, there's that idea that if you can sell your case strongly enough then it's okay, if you can get away with it, it's not wrong. So how does this tie in with a Myers-Brigg assessment? I appear to have deviated onto a major tangent here. To bring it back to my original point, I believe that the more people fall into these "personality" categories the more they pigeon hole themselves into something that they are not. We're a society that likes to label without looking like we're labeling people.
From personal experience I have found that interaction with other people is largely something that is developed. Sure it comes more naturally to some than to others, however, I believe that each person is capable of change. Through the labels of INFJ, ISTP, ESFP, etc... then there creates a sort of boundary. In our attempts to explain ourselves we also devoid ourselves of any reason to change. I believe there is a difference between being accepting of someone for who they are as compared to being a doormat. In any social interaction there is a certain amount of etiquette to be observed, however what these labels successfully do is toss out that etiquette because that's "just who people are". Sure I can buy that, but that doesn't make it okay. For any good thought experiment to work, we need to take it to an extreme, say I'm belligerent by nature and just smack any random person I don't like the look of. That's just the way I am. Doesn't make it right. If that's who I am, and who I am is not right, then I need to change it.
Now before people start bashing me for bashing Myers-Briggs and Carl Jung let me speak in their defense. They are positive for the purposes of self-reflection. In understanding ourselves we can then make that move to improve the areas where we are weaker, to work on being more outgoing if we're introverted, on being more understanding of others feelings if we're more rational and calculating in thought. When it becomes something of, "this is who I am, take it or leave it" I think then that it's a useless label maker that doesn't really do anything except marginalize people.
At what point does it vary from "oh, that's just his/her personality" to being some kind of cop out for a means of behavior? I feel like a lot of times we live in a society where if we can explain something that makes it okay, regardless of the consequences. We live in a society of justification, if you can spout off enough reasons that smatters of legitimacy, if you can convince enough people that your case was something of an exception, or that you were in an extenuating circumstance then anything is permissable then you are always right. If you want it put shortly, we live a society of lawyers. Not to say all lawyers are like that, however, there's that idea that if you can sell your case strongly enough then it's okay, if you can get away with it, it's not wrong. So how does this tie in with a Myers-Brigg assessment? I appear to have deviated onto a major tangent here. To bring it back to my original point, I believe that the more people fall into these "personality" categories the more they pigeon hole themselves into something that they are not. We're a society that likes to label without looking like we're labeling people.
From personal experience I have found that interaction with other people is largely something that is developed. Sure it comes more naturally to some than to others, however, I believe that each person is capable of change. Through the labels of INFJ, ISTP, ESFP, etc... then there creates a sort of boundary. In our attempts to explain ourselves we also devoid ourselves of any reason to change. I believe there is a difference between being accepting of someone for who they are as compared to being a doormat. In any social interaction there is a certain amount of etiquette to be observed, however what these labels successfully do is toss out that etiquette because that's "just who people are". Sure I can buy that, but that doesn't make it okay. For any good thought experiment to work, we need to take it to an extreme, say I'm belligerent by nature and just smack any random person I don't like the look of. That's just the way I am. Doesn't make it right. If that's who I am, and who I am is not right, then I need to change it.
Now before people start bashing me for bashing Myers-Briggs and Carl Jung let me speak in their defense. They are positive for the purposes of self-reflection. In understanding ourselves we can then make that move to improve the areas where we are weaker, to work on being more outgoing if we're introverted, on being more understanding of others feelings if we're more rational and calculating in thought. When it becomes something of, "this is who I am, take it or leave it" I think then that it's a useless label maker that doesn't really do anything except marginalize people.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Current Reads: Updated
Serious Life Stuff:
Currently I have a short list of 3 books that I am reading through that I find to be both insightful and practical in the living of Christian life and the application of theology. They provide what I believe is the proper perspective on many issues in life, especially ones that I struggle with:
Good Life by Charles Colson
The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard
The Cost of Discipleship by Deitrich Bonhoffer
Fantasy:
So I managed to slog through the rest of John Marco's The Jackal of Nar it wasn't as paralleled to Ms Saigon as it could've been, so that was kind of nice. Currently, I'm going through an older series, I haven't picked up many new books so I haven't been reading in as high of a volume as I normally do.
The Elfstones of Shannara by Terry Brooks
Currently I have a short list of 3 books that I am reading through that I find to be both insightful and practical in the living of Christian life and the application of theology. They provide what I believe is the proper perspective on many issues in life, especially ones that I struggle with:
Good Life by Charles Colson
The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard
The Cost of Discipleship by Deitrich Bonhoffer
Fantasy:
So I managed to slog through the rest of John Marco's The Jackal of Nar it wasn't as paralleled to Ms Saigon as it could've been, so that was kind of nice. Currently, I'm going through an older series, I haven't picked up many new books so I haven't been reading in as high of a volume as I normally do.
The Elfstones of Shannara by Terry Brooks
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Nature of Introversion
I've always considered myself somewhat of an introvert. If the Myers-Brigg assessments can be trusted, I've been anywhere between 80%-100% introverted on all of the assessments save the most recent one, which, if the MyType application in Facebook is too be believed, then I am hardly an introvert, but somewhere on the border between introversion and extroversion, leaning ever so slightly towards the side of introversion. One of my greatest shortcomings is that I can be something of recluse, I easily, and readily, and often subconsciously alienate myself from other people and various social situations. I still do sometimes. It's something that I have been working on extensively for the better part of the last 5-6 years. However, I am still more inclined to believe I am a major introvert as opposed to the fact that I have changed drastically. Of course, then that comes to the question of what is the nature of introversion and extroversion, which I hope that some of my theorizing may illuminate the perspective by which I view things.
I believe that Myers-Brigg falls somewhat short in that it attempts to assess personality via simple behavioral patterns (I know I likely oversimplify it, but that is how I see it), and while generally an accurate measure, it has by my experience, not really captured the essence of who we really are. It's a quantitative approach at something that is better measured qualitatively. Not to say that Myers-Brigg is completely invalid, however, I believe that relying on it alone would be very poor judgment of any person's character. While introversion and extroversion are measured very much on a behavioral standpoint, I believe that there has been a large misconception of equating such with what I will simply call social competency. The general premise being that extroverts are naturally more socially adept than their introverted counterparts. To some extent this is true, but however, I believe that the nature of introversion and extroversion are not the proficiency with which one handles a social situation.
I speak more from experience than from any intensive study of the matter, but I know many people who have been somewhat surprised that I claim to be as introverted as I am, but I personally have no doubts regarding my own introversion. I am somewhat shy and reserved, but I have no qualms about speaking in public, about taking initiative, about being around people, about being the center of attention, I however, still consider myself extremely introverted. I believe introversion to be a matter of preference rather than ability. I think that social grace (at least to the extent of being around many people and carrying on a conversation) is like a language that can be learned, it comes more naturally to the extroverts than to introverts. That is not to say that introverts cannot be experts in the language, but they must work that much harder to express themselves thus. My primary language is English, I am very comfortable in almost any sort of exposition so long as it is in English, however, when you move the language to Chinese, a language I can speak fluently but am less proficient in, it becomes a greater chore and requires much greater effort for me to express myself with the same effectiveness as I would in English. Likewise (I can only speak for introversion as I am not an extrovert), an introverted person would require that much more effort to be a more "social" person. Not to say that he/she would not be able to carry himself/herself perfectly fine in a more "social" environment but that it would simply require more effort and would be more taxing (as I've found) both mentally and physically. Some of the most socially adept people I know are actually introverted. I just believe that many of them (introverts) do not actively practice this "language" and thus the correlation is created, whereas extroverts continually put themselves in said situation and are very much comfortable and at ease given the circumstances.
So is there an application to all of this? For one, the tried and true rule of not being able to judge anyone or anything simply on appearances. Additionally, I think for perhaps friends and family and loved ones understanding perhaps that though they appear to be handling themselves well in a social situation it may be more taxing than it appears. It's hard to be conscious about that, but now we know, and at the very least it's something. It requires a lot of energy for an introvert to be around people, especially for a long period of time. Not to say they don't get lonely and can live without company indefinitely, but understanding that they recharge by taking a break from people for a little bit. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that it requires more energy from them than it does of the extroverts. When an athlete stops to rest between games, it's not because he/she hates the sport, the athlete is just tired.
I believe that Myers-Brigg falls somewhat short in that it attempts to assess personality via simple behavioral patterns (I know I likely oversimplify it, but that is how I see it), and while generally an accurate measure, it has by my experience, not really captured the essence of who we really are. It's a quantitative approach at something that is better measured qualitatively. Not to say that Myers-Brigg is completely invalid, however, I believe that relying on it alone would be very poor judgment of any person's character. While introversion and extroversion are measured very much on a behavioral standpoint, I believe that there has been a large misconception of equating such with what I will simply call social competency. The general premise being that extroverts are naturally more socially adept than their introverted counterparts. To some extent this is true, but however, I believe that the nature of introversion and extroversion are not the proficiency with which one handles a social situation.
I speak more from experience than from any intensive study of the matter, but I know many people who have been somewhat surprised that I claim to be as introverted as I am, but I personally have no doubts regarding my own introversion. I am somewhat shy and reserved, but I have no qualms about speaking in public, about taking initiative, about being around people, about being the center of attention, I however, still consider myself extremely introverted. I believe introversion to be a matter of preference rather than ability. I think that social grace (at least to the extent of being around many people and carrying on a conversation) is like a language that can be learned, it comes more naturally to the extroverts than to introverts. That is not to say that introverts cannot be experts in the language, but they must work that much harder to express themselves thus. My primary language is English, I am very comfortable in almost any sort of exposition so long as it is in English, however, when you move the language to Chinese, a language I can speak fluently but am less proficient in, it becomes a greater chore and requires much greater effort for me to express myself with the same effectiveness as I would in English. Likewise (I can only speak for introversion as I am not an extrovert), an introverted person would require that much more effort to be a more "social" person. Not to say that he/she would not be able to carry himself/herself perfectly fine in a more "social" environment but that it would simply require more effort and would be more taxing (as I've found) both mentally and physically. Some of the most socially adept people I know are actually introverted. I just believe that many of them (introverts) do not actively practice this "language" and thus the correlation is created, whereas extroverts continually put themselves in said situation and are very much comfortable and at ease given the circumstances.
So is there an application to all of this? For one, the tried and true rule of not being able to judge anyone or anything simply on appearances. Additionally, I think for perhaps friends and family and loved ones understanding perhaps that though they appear to be handling themselves well in a social situation it may be more taxing than it appears. It's hard to be conscious about that, but now we know, and at the very least it's something. It requires a lot of energy for an introvert to be around people, especially for a long period of time. Not to say they don't get lonely and can live without company indefinitely, but understanding that they recharge by taking a break from people for a little bit. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that it requires more energy from them than it does of the extroverts. When an athlete stops to rest between games, it's not because he/she hates the sport, the athlete is just tired.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Current Reads
Well, I've been going through books fairly rapidly recently, and I thought, why not up and discuss what I like and dislike about them here, in the event anyone was looking for a good read. So here goes:
Recently Read:
The Name of the Wind
Patrick Rothfuss
So I finished this pretty recently, and I had read online that it was supposed to be like one of the best books ever. Apparently the internet and I have some differing opinions on what is considered excellence in the realm of fantasy writing. Rothfuss does create a very interesting world and all, however, I believe that there are better things to be had. The bulk of the novel entails a man recalling a life and something of a legacy that he left behind. I won't say more for risk of spoiling the story, it's an interesting story, however, it's not quite the thing that I really look for. The protagonist tends towards those that are incredibly lucky and/or overly capable to do anything and everything that is set before him. The narrative is good, it maintains a good flow, however, it's nothing that I would go out of my way for. Likely something I would finish in terms of the story and the other books in the forthcoming series, however, I wouldn't consider it a must have in your library.
The Obsidian Chronicles
Dragon Weather
Dragon Society
Dragon Venom
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I recently finished this sereis and have to say, that Watt-Evans is one of the more pleasant finds I've come across recently, his narrative and story development are interesting. The worlds that he builds, in this case, specifically the world known as the Lands of Man, are believable and he wanders with some intriguing ideas as to what a fantastical world should look like and operate. I thoroughly enjoyed this series, again, something of a quick read, not one to keep through the years in your collection.
Annals of the Chosen
The Wizard Lord
The Ninth Talisman
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I think this is the first series of Watt-Evans that I stumbled upon, or rather I stumbled upon The Wizard Lord specifically. It's an interesting concept and a fun story to read through, despite the one-dimensionality of almost all of the characters. There are more interesting ideas to be had here, Watt-Evans I believe is one of the more imaginative authors I've come across recently.
Currently Reading:
The Jackal of Nar
John Marco
The story seemed interesting enough through the first half of the novel. Now I'm slogging through the second half, and honestly, my assessment of the novel continues to drop. It's not a bad write, and I'm hoping that his other works are a little more original. To me it's like a 750 page written remake of the musical Ms. Saigon in a fantasy world, and it's losing me by the page.
Recently Read:
The Name of the Wind
Patrick Rothfuss
So I finished this pretty recently, and I had read online that it was supposed to be like one of the best books ever. Apparently the internet and I have some differing opinions on what is considered excellence in the realm of fantasy writing. Rothfuss does create a very interesting world and all, however, I believe that there are better things to be had. The bulk of the novel entails a man recalling a life and something of a legacy that he left behind. I won't say more for risk of spoiling the story, it's an interesting story, however, it's not quite the thing that I really look for. The protagonist tends towards those that are incredibly lucky and/or overly capable to do anything and everything that is set before him. The narrative is good, it maintains a good flow, however, it's nothing that I would go out of my way for. Likely something I would finish in terms of the story and the other books in the forthcoming series, however, I wouldn't consider it a must have in your library.
The Obsidian Chronicles
Dragon Weather
Dragon Society
Dragon Venom
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I recently finished this sereis and have to say, that Watt-Evans is one of the more pleasant finds I've come across recently, his narrative and story development are interesting. The worlds that he builds, in this case, specifically the world known as the Lands of Man, are believable and he wanders with some intriguing ideas as to what a fantastical world should look like and operate. I thoroughly enjoyed this series, again, something of a quick read, not one to keep through the years in your collection.
Annals of the Chosen
The Wizard Lord
The Ninth Talisman
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I think this is the first series of Watt-Evans that I stumbled upon, or rather I stumbled upon The Wizard Lord specifically. It's an interesting concept and a fun story to read through, despite the one-dimensionality of almost all of the characters. There are more interesting ideas to be had here, Watt-Evans I believe is one of the more imaginative authors I've come across recently.
Currently Reading:
The Jackal of Nar
John Marco
The story seemed interesting enough through the first half of the novel. Now I'm slogging through the second half, and honestly, my assessment of the novel continues to drop. It's not a bad write, and I'm hoping that his other works are a little more original. To me it's like a 750 page written remake of the musical Ms. Saigon in a fantasy world, and it's losing me by the page.
The Man: Who Really Makes the Rules?
I'm not sure why, but I've been pondering these things more and more, specifically the idea of who we answer to on a moral level. The idea of whether or not there is such a thing as morality and such, and where it comes from, how our ethics are determined, etc... I'm not really here to discuss the existence of morality and ethics and the like, however, I believe in order for us to really get anywhere with this sort of discourse, it is required that we take a slight line of tangency and first discuss the merits of morality, ethics, what they are, and how they affect us. So let us begin there.
Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:
"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:
"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"
I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".
I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.
Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.
Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:
"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:
"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"
I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".
I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.
Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Absolutely Confusing
So, I've been thinking a lot about these random existential questions, and there comes to mind a question that I've been asked previously, and only recently did I recall how to work out the solution. The question being; "What is wrong with the statement; 'There are no absolutes except for the fact that there are no absolutes.'?" Which in appearance seems to be a legitimate statement. However, if we look at it from a logical standpoint, I think we can firmly diffuse the statement has being somewhat self-contradictory. For the sake of brevity, assume that when I use the phrase "there are no absolutes" that the exception is implicitly included.
Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.
Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Humanism vs Intuition: The Moral Dilemma
In recent history the debate regarding the origin of the world has come and gone, and continues through today. I believe that in the current day, we have boiled all the arguments down to two possible options; complete random chance (that is to say evolution) or purposed creation (intelligent design). There has been heated arguments from either side regarding who in fact has the scientific backing to support his/her cause, and I could tout various scientific findings, theorems, and postulates and whatnot in favor of one or the other. However, the issue I want to address is more at the core of the debate. Some people might be indifferent, stating that we're here now, regardless of how we got here, however, I would argue that knowing where we come from is a crucial or at the very least largely insightful part of understanding and knowing who we (collectively as human beings) really are. However, I am not here to argue in terms of science, but of something I think more people can relate to, which is intuition, the intuition of morality, which I believe is insufficiently addressed by any proponent of evolution.
Firstly, I want to make something very clear. I believe that the idea of evolution is ultimately trying to sell to people the a lifestyle or worldview, which some have called humanism and which is a term that I will aptly adopt. Humanism, basically holds that we are here more or less because we "just happen" to have been created. By some series of mutations and adaptations life was both created and eventually evolved into us. Therefore, ultimately, the only accountability we ultimately have is to ourselves, while we may put ourselves in positions of accountability to others, the boss, the one who has the ultimate say, the be-all, end-all, is the individual. This sort of fits then with the common post-modern philosophy of relativism. The idea, that everything is not only permissible, but also right, each person has his/her own truth, and that each truth is equally truthful. Reality, in essence is defined by each individual. Ultimately, the phrase "there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth".
Now, let us consider the implication of evolution. If we assume that we were indeed created by random chance, then obviously there is no higher order, words such as "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are all somewhat arbitrary concepts that ultimately are subject to be relative to the definition of each individual. The simple fact that we were the product of dumb-luck, the remote possibility of the right chemicals mixing at the right time, concludes that we therefore are ultimately the bosses of ourselves. At the basic definitive level of things, there would be confusion. Who is to say that the sky is blue? Why can't it be pink? Why can't the sky be A# major 9th? I may think it's blue, but it would be perfectly alright for my neighbor to believe that it's minty. It's a silly example, but, in order for this idea of evolution to be feasible, would that not be what would ultimately happen? Yet, it is universally agreed that the sky is blue.
Moving to another example, let us consider the implications of morality within a hypothetically functional society built from evolved beings. Since we answer to no one but ourselves, ultimately, what my purpose in life is, is to do what makes me feel the best. As the theory of evolution must conclude, we're here "just because" and therefore there's nothing afterward, so logically we need to make the most of what's here now. There is no compunction for what we call "good behavior" or what is socially accepted because there is no benefit from it. Certainly I want to live a comfortable life within the rules and regulations of a social norm, where a government structure will protect me from lawlessness (all this being somewhat contradictory to relativism to begin with, but assuming), I have no reason to be altruistic or the sort. While I may be willing to give up some of my freedoms so that the ones I value may be protected as well, the question then remains, what about those things that we consider good outside the strictures of legality? What about true altruism? Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what's there to get out of it? Why bother?
We live in a world of absolutes, and quite simply, if there is a definition of "right" and "wrong" to be had, it must have been determined outside of humanity. I don't think that there is any intrinsic merit to what any man has to say. We trust people's expertise because they have painstakingly studied their area, we trust that astronomers know what they're talking about when they speak of the stars, that a botanist is knowledgeable in a discourse on plant life, a mathematician in the theorems and equations that make up what we know as math. Yet, did the astronomers make the stars? Did the botanist create the plants which he studies? Does the mathematician create the foundations that enables his equations to balance? I would argue that no, these don't happen, and therefore morality and ethics cannot be a simple product of human thought, as humanism would have us believe.
I have yet to meet a person who has not used the word "should" or "ought". As soon as these words are used an absolute is formed and the idea that each person is judged by his/her own standard is thrown completely out the door. I think people will agree with me when I say that the world ought to do away with slavery. If I were to ask or be asked why, I believe a large part of the answer would be along the lines of, "To make the world a better place." In a humanistic society, the idea of better or worse cannot exist, if I were to believe that I define my own truth, that there is no greater being to answer to than myself, then there is only yours and mine, not better or worse. Intuitively we understand that there is something that we can call "good" and "bad", actions that we can call "right" and "wrong". Author Chuck Colson gives this example; there is an elderly woman standing at the corner waiting to cross the street, you have three options; a.) help the woman across, b.) ignore the woman, c.) push her into oncoming traffic. Most people would agree that (a) is the "good" thing to do, and (b) while not "wrong" is still "worse" than (a), and finally that (c) is the obviously wrong thing to do. For someone to say that he/she has never felt guilt, I believe, is for that someone to tell a lie. So, if I were to define what is right and wrong in my life, then how can any of my actions be wrong? More importantly, how can we say that the people who opt to push the lady into oncoming traffic are wrong? Intuitively there just seems to be something about it that seems unjust, downright, I say it again, wrong.
I have heard that perhaps it is the strictures of society, and the laws that govern us within our society that determines what is right and wrong. Let us look at another simple example; there are several young school children lining up to get lunch, right before one child is about to ask the cafeteria working for food, a larger boy shoves the child aside and takes his place in line. Perhaps the shoving could be legally termed as assault and battery, but point is, is that inherently, we feel that the larger boy, who did not wait his turn, has done something wrong. The teacher may not have seen it, and thus may not have done anything about it, but, the child whose place was taken inherently understands that what happened to him was unfair, was wrong. We don't need society to tell us that when something is taken from us that we have been wronged. The concepts of evolution, humanism, etc.. don't answer why that feeling is there. Intuitively we live that there are ways things should and should be, ways that are outside of us. I don't think that this would occur if we all just happened to pop out of some primordial soup. Intuitively, I feel that humanism, specifically the explaination of our origin via evolution addresses the moral quandry that we so often find ourselves in.
To me the logical explanation then becomes, there is some standard that has been set outside of humanity that we're supposed to meet. Logically, the being that set that standard, is the one who made us. Think of a car manufacturer, there is a performance standard that each car has to meet before being sent out on the roads, likewise, we have moral standards that we were designed to meet. I don't know that this answers questions that have been there age long, but it's just my 2 cents when thinking about it.
Firstly, I want to make something very clear. I believe that the idea of evolution is ultimately trying to sell to people the a lifestyle or worldview, which some have called humanism and which is a term that I will aptly adopt. Humanism, basically holds that we are here more or less because we "just happen" to have been created. By some series of mutations and adaptations life was both created and eventually evolved into us. Therefore, ultimately, the only accountability we ultimately have is to ourselves, while we may put ourselves in positions of accountability to others, the boss, the one who has the ultimate say, the be-all, end-all, is the individual. This sort of fits then with the common post-modern philosophy of relativism. The idea, that everything is not only permissible, but also right, each person has his/her own truth, and that each truth is equally truthful. Reality, in essence is defined by each individual. Ultimately, the phrase "there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth".
Now, let us consider the implication of evolution. If we assume that we were indeed created by random chance, then obviously there is no higher order, words such as "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are all somewhat arbitrary concepts that ultimately are subject to be relative to the definition of each individual. The simple fact that we were the product of dumb-luck, the remote possibility of the right chemicals mixing at the right time, concludes that we therefore are ultimately the bosses of ourselves. At the basic definitive level of things, there would be confusion. Who is to say that the sky is blue? Why can't it be pink? Why can't the sky be A# major 9th? I may think it's blue, but it would be perfectly alright for my neighbor to believe that it's minty. It's a silly example, but, in order for this idea of evolution to be feasible, would that not be what would ultimately happen? Yet, it is universally agreed that the sky is blue.
Moving to another example, let us consider the implications of morality within a hypothetically functional society built from evolved beings. Since we answer to no one but ourselves, ultimately, what my purpose in life is, is to do what makes me feel the best. As the theory of evolution must conclude, we're here "just because" and therefore there's nothing afterward, so logically we need to make the most of what's here now. There is no compunction for what we call "good behavior" or what is socially accepted because there is no benefit from it. Certainly I want to live a comfortable life within the rules and regulations of a social norm, where a government structure will protect me from lawlessness (all this being somewhat contradictory to relativism to begin with, but assuming), I have no reason to be altruistic or the sort. While I may be willing to give up some of my freedoms so that the ones I value may be protected as well, the question then remains, what about those things that we consider good outside the strictures of legality? What about true altruism? Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what's there to get out of it? Why bother?
We live in a world of absolutes, and quite simply, if there is a definition of "right" and "wrong" to be had, it must have been determined outside of humanity. I don't think that there is any intrinsic merit to what any man has to say. We trust people's expertise because they have painstakingly studied their area, we trust that astronomers know what they're talking about when they speak of the stars, that a botanist is knowledgeable in a discourse on plant life, a mathematician in the theorems and equations that make up what we know as math. Yet, did the astronomers make the stars? Did the botanist create the plants which he studies? Does the mathematician create the foundations that enables his equations to balance? I would argue that no, these don't happen, and therefore morality and ethics cannot be a simple product of human thought, as humanism would have us believe.
I have yet to meet a person who has not used the word "should" or "ought". As soon as these words are used an absolute is formed and the idea that each person is judged by his/her own standard is thrown completely out the door. I think people will agree with me when I say that the world ought to do away with slavery. If I were to ask or be asked why, I believe a large part of the answer would be along the lines of, "To make the world a better place." In a humanistic society, the idea of better or worse cannot exist, if I were to believe that I define my own truth, that there is no greater being to answer to than myself, then there is only yours and mine, not better or worse. Intuitively we understand that there is something that we can call "good" and "bad", actions that we can call "right" and "wrong". Author Chuck Colson gives this example; there is an elderly woman standing at the corner waiting to cross the street, you have three options; a.) help the woman across, b.) ignore the woman, c.) push her into oncoming traffic. Most people would agree that (a) is the "good" thing to do, and (b) while not "wrong" is still "worse" than (a), and finally that (c) is the obviously wrong thing to do. For someone to say that he/she has never felt guilt, I believe, is for that someone to tell a lie. So, if I were to define what is right and wrong in my life, then how can any of my actions be wrong? More importantly, how can we say that the people who opt to push the lady into oncoming traffic are wrong? Intuitively there just seems to be something about it that seems unjust, downright, I say it again, wrong.
I have heard that perhaps it is the strictures of society, and the laws that govern us within our society that determines what is right and wrong. Let us look at another simple example; there are several young school children lining up to get lunch, right before one child is about to ask the cafeteria working for food, a larger boy shoves the child aside and takes his place in line. Perhaps the shoving could be legally termed as assault and battery, but point is, is that inherently, we feel that the larger boy, who did not wait his turn, has done something wrong. The teacher may not have seen it, and thus may not have done anything about it, but, the child whose place was taken inherently understands that what happened to him was unfair, was wrong. We don't need society to tell us that when something is taken from us that we have been wronged. The concepts of evolution, humanism, etc.. don't answer why that feeling is there. Intuitively we live that there are ways things should and should be, ways that are outside of us. I don't think that this would occur if we all just happened to pop out of some primordial soup. Intuitively, I feel that humanism, specifically the explaination of our origin via evolution addresses the moral quandry that we so often find ourselves in.
To me the logical explanation then becomes, there is some standard that has been set outside of humanity that we're supposed to meet. Logically, the being that set that standard, is the one who made us. Think of a car manufacturer, there is a performance standard that each car has to meet before being sent out on the roads, likewise, we have moral standards that we were designed to meet. I don't know that this answers questions that have been there age long, but it's just my 2 cents when thinking about it.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The New Musical Era
After seeing Mamma Mia recently, I've decide that a decidedly fun way of spending time would be to write musical scripts. Of course, Mamma Mia was inspired by the musical workings of ABBA, so thus, I wondered, could not other artists be taken and epic comedic stories put on stage as well? Say, what about a musical inspired by the works of Starship Jefferson, Journey, The Police, Queen, or even Boyz II Men? The possibilities are endless, simply either make a compilation of best of... or simply take an album and fit all the songs somehow into some sort of convoluted story line. It makes musical theater that much more interesting when you can sing along to the songs.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Fallibility of Doing
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
A pastor once said "We are called human BE-ings, not human DO-ings." It is in our inherent nature to want to do things, we feel that when we are inactive nothing is getting done, and that for anything to actually "happen" our hands need to be doing something. We want to feel "useful" and "productive". There's nothing wrong in that, but when that becomes our main focus, taken to an extreme, when we refuse to sit still because of the "unproductivity" it would cause, we cease to do God's work and we are doing our own. We forge ahead on our own grandiose crusade for God all the while ignoring his call for us to "Be still and know I am God" (Psalm 46:10). Often we cry out for God to show us His way, then rush off to do whatever it is we think God wants us to do before we even stop to hear what God has to tell us. Oftentimes I get in the mindset of "Well, I know what God's work is." and with that mentality our appeal to God for direction becomes merely some sort of formality to appease Him. I know I am often guilty of this, thinking of some idea that would supposedly further His Kingdom, His glory, His honor, and His name. Then justifying myself in saying that if God doesn't want this to work then it won't work out. What if, though, we were to first stop, and listen to God, hear what He has to say and then stepped out in obedience, how much more powerful and effective then would be our efforts? We don't do God's work, God does God's work through us. In recognizing this, we then realize the futility of our own efforts, and how our rush to action often hinders us from the importance of simply knowing God. God doesn't ask of us to do anything, there's nothing we can do that he can't (except sin if you want to be technical), He simply asks us to be still and know Him.
As Christians we often hear this phrase that we are to "bear fruit". My question then would be; what fruit are we to bear? If we look at apostle Paul's answer in Galatians 5:22-23 (see above) then we can see that none of these are simple results of action. We do not create love from some deed, nor patience, nor kindness, nor gentleness, etc... Bearing fruit does not mean working hard to achieve some sort of goal or quota. God does not dispense blessings on commission. He does not say to me "Good work Jonas, you've brought x number of people to eternal salvation." or "Jonas, I think you really need to start working a little harder, you're falling behind and it doesn't look like you'll meet your annual projection of souls saved". In Matthew 13 Jesus tells us the parable of the sower, and likens us to the soils. Now if we really think about what it means to be put into the parable of the sower, how do we bear good fruit? The answer is simply, to be good soil. When we start living life in the perspective of "who I should be" then the "what I should do" ought to come naturally to us. In living out this life, when I realize who I should be, I recognize then that I am not that person, and in doing so, I realize who I really am and the impossibility of becoming who I ought to be outside of the grace that is found in Christ.
Galatians 5:22-23
In our current state we're always in a constant struggle of what we are to do with our lives. To me, it often seems like we're living very much in a society that desires the ultimate "how-to"s to life in all its intricate aspects. Oftentimes it almost feels like the purpose of our lives has been reduced to what we've done and what we've yet to do. Accomplishments are the be all end all of our existence. Of course, I don't mean to downplay the importance of the "how"s in life, they're a very important aspect, how something is accomplished is easily as important as the end result of said accomplishment. However, in all our efforts to do the right thing we often forget the importance of why we're doing it. We're so caught up in the question of "what am I supposed to do?" and end up doing things just because. This I feel applies not only to the living of life (be it at work, in school, with your family) but also in the application of Christianity as well. Too often my Christian walk has consisted of "to-do"s that supposedly "ensure" my continuing faith and growth in my relationship with Christ. I need to pray, serve, read my Bible, attend church, minister, evangelize, etc... Please don't misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with anything above, and to exercise a strong Christian faith we all need said discplines in our lives. However, the point I make is that too often my focus in Christianity becomes what I can do, the Christian life becomes a process more than an experience. I believe that the question we ought to focus on isn't, "what do I do?" but "who should I be?"
A pastor once said "We are called human BE-ings, not human DO-ings." It is in our inherent nature to want to do things, we feel that when we are inactive nothing is getting done, and that for anything to actually "happen" our hands need to be doing something. We want to feel "useful" and "productive". There's nothing wrong in that, but when that becomes our main focus, taken to an extreme, when we refuse to sit still because of the "unproductivity" it would cause, we cease to do God's work and we are doing our own. We forge ahead on our own grandiose crusade for God all the while ignoring his call for us to "Be still and know I am God" (Psalm 46:10). Often we cry out for God to show us His way, then rush off to do whatever it is we think God wants us to do before we even stop to hear what God has to tell us. Oftentimes I get in the mindset of "Well, I know what God's work is." and with that mentality our appeal to God for direction becomes merely some sort of formality to appease Him. I know I am often guilty of this, thinking of some idea that would supposedly further His Kingdom, His glory, His honor, and His name. Then justifying myself in saying that if God doesn't want this to work then it won't work out. What if, though, we were to first stop, and listen to God, hear what He has to say and then stepped out in obedience, how much more powerful and effective then would be our efforts? We don't do God's work, God does God's work through us. In recognizing this, we then realize the futility of our own efforts, and how our rush to action often hinders us from the importance of simply knowing God. God doesn't ask of us to do anything, there's nothing we can do that he can't (except sin if you want to be technical), He simply asks us to be still and know Him.
As Christians we often hear this phrase that we are to "bear fruit". My question then would be; what fruit are we to bear? If we look at apostle Paul's answer in Galatians 5:22-23 (see above) then we can see that none of these are simple results of action. We do not create love from some deed, nor patience, nor kindness, nor gentleness, etc... Bearing fruit does not mean working hard to achieve some sort of goal or quota. God does not dispense blessings on commission. He does not say to me "Good work Jonas, you've brought x number of people to eternal salvation." or "Jonas, I think you really need to start working a little harder, you're falling behind and it doesn't look like you'll meet your annual projection of souls saved". In Matthew 13 Jesus tells us the parable of the sower, and likens us to the soils. Now if we really think about what it means to be put into the parable of the sower, how do we bear good fruit? The answer is simply, to be good soil. When we start living life in the perspective of "who I should be" then the "what I should do" ought to come naturally to us. In living out this life, when I realize who I should be, I recognize then that I am not that person, and in doing so, I realize who I really am and the impossibility of becoming who I ought to be outside of the grace that is found in Christ.
Monday, February 25, 2008
New Blog
For the 3 (maybe 4) readers of my blog:
As you may have noticed I have begun a trend of NBA blogging, thus, as it has become quite prevalent, I have decided to start another blog for it. Please visit jacemannba.blogspot.com to see the new ones. This will be fed to my Facebook profile as well. Meaning this blog no longer will as you can only have one feed to Facebook at a time.
As you may have noticed I have begun a trend of NBA blogging, thus, as it has become quite prevalent, I have decided to start another blog for it. Please visit jacemannba.blogspot.com to see the new ones. This will be fed to my Facebook profile as well. Meaning this blog no longer will as you can only have one feed to Facebook at a time.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Future of Computer Portability
Well, I'm no expert on any thing, but here's my take on what would be cool for future laptop development. I was inspired this morning after a brief discussion regarding the Macbook Air. Simply put, I believe that the future computer ought to be a Nintendo DS with holographic projection. Interface could be done using the stylus and switching between the screens, and standard use could be a keyboard projection from the touch screen and the monitor projection from the second screen. Dunno, I think it'd work.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
My Reads: Fantasy (continued from Nov 12, 2007 post)
As promised, I am continuing my recommendations on fantasy novels to read and why you should read them. I apologize that it's been a while since I've continued this, so please forgive me. Let me continue:
C.S. Lewis:
A classic, I'd read anything by him, not just fantasy, but that's where I started. He only really wrote one fantasy series, the Space Trilogy being something of Sci-Fi which I venture into every now and then. Great narrative and character development, excellent, quick reads.
The Chronicles of Narnia - The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; Prince Caspian; The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair; The Horse and His Boy; The Magician's Nephew; The Last Battle
Contrary to whatever genius that decided after the fact of reading the series that the books have to be in chronological order, this is how the series should be read. Chronologically The Magician's Nephew occurs first and The Horse and His Boy occurs before the end of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe but, you should read it in this order. Simply because, it's the order Lewis wrote them in and he writes each one assuming you've read his previous books. Book 6 (The Magician's Nephew) doesn't make a lot of snese if you haven't read book 1 (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe). Overall, the stories are very well developed and fun to read, I also really appreciate how Lewis puts the Gospel into his work.
J.R.R. Tolkien:
Like Lewis, Tolkien is another classic that I consider a must read. Of course given Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, many people feel this unnecessary. I only have to say, Peter Jackson's movies, as great as they are, hardly do the novels justice. I feel that the movies are even greater in the context of having read the novels, but as a replacement, they are a poor subsitute. Tolkien does so much in depth character development, and touches on so many issues, that he inspires you with the epicness of his story. There's really not a whole lot I can say about it except you have to read it.
The Hobbit
Lord of the Rings - Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, Return of the King
The Silmarillion
A good starting place for Tolkien is always The Hobbit. While his greatest work remains Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, a prequel, is really a wonderful introduction to Tolkien's Middle Earth. The Silmarillion similar to David Edding's Rivan Codex is something of a history book denoting everything that happens before his acclaimed series. The reading can be a little dry, but it does provide a lot of good contextual information.
These are basically all of the "must read" authors from my perspective currently. I'll toss up another list of stuff I've read that you might like (despite my being less enamoured of them than the previously mentioned series and authors) as well.
C.S. Lewis:
A classic, I'd read anything by him, not just fantasy, but that's where I started. He only really wrote one fantasy series, the Space Trilogy being something of Sci-Fi which I venture into every now and then. Great narrative and character development, excellent, quick reads.
The Chronicles of Narnia - The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; Prince Caspian; The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair; The Horse and His Boy; The Magician's Nephew; The Last Battle
Contrary to whatever genius that decided after the fact of reading the series that the books have to be in chronological order, this is how the series should be read. Chronologically The Magician's Nephew occurs first and The Horse and His Boy occurs before the end of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe but, you should read it in this order. Simply because, it's the order Lewis wrote them in and he writes each one assuming you've read his previous books. Book 6 (The Magician's Nephew) doesn't make a lot of snese if you haven't read book 1 (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe). Overall, the stories are very well developed and fun to read, I also really appreciate how Lewis puts the Gospel into his work.
J.R.R. Tolkien:
Like Lewis, Tolkien is another classic that I consider a must read. Of course given Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, many people feel this unnecessary. I only have to say, Peter Jackson's movies, as great as they are, hardly do the novels justice. I feel that the movies are even greater in the context of having read the novels, but as a replacement, they are a poor subsitute. Tolkien does so much in depth character development, and touches on so many issues, that he inspires you with the epicness of his story. There's really not a whole lot I can say about it except you have to read it.
The Hobbit
Lord of the Rings - Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, Return of the King
The Silmarillion
A good starting place for Tolkien is always The Hobbit. While his greatest work remains Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, a prequel, is really a wonderful introduction to Tolkien's Middle Earth. The Silmarillion similar to David Edding's Rivan Codex is something of a history book denoting everything that happens before his acclaimed series. The reading can be a little dry, but it does provide a lot of good contextual information.
These are basically all of the "must read" authors from my perspective currently. I'll toss up another list of stuff I've read that you might like (despite my being less enamoured of them than the previously mentioned series and authors) as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)