Engineering Appeal

It's Spring again, and we're enjoying one of the great benefits of this time of year: strawberries. Aren't strawberries amazing? Truly. Nothing quite like them.



I have a friend who has never tasted a strawberry. She's allergic. Tragic!! If that were me, once a year I'd consider getting the ripest, sweetest strawberries I could find, savoring the eating experience, and quickly washing them down with a Benadril Shake. Or maybe a strawberry Benadril shake? Hopefully they would cancel each other. Perhaps the emergency room lounge would be a prudent place to enjoy such a treat?

Last year we went strawberry picking. What stood out to me most from the experience, right after the strangeness of paying someone to watch you work, was the contrast between the ripe, small field berries we picked and the giant, lustrous store-bought ones. In fact, other than being the same berries, grocery store berries and the ones you might find in a field have little in common.

The ones we get in the store now absolutely astound us. They're the size of plums! Some aberrations are bigger. They're red red red. They're beautiful! You feel like they've selected this tiny percentage of berries - elite grade monster berries! All the supermodels of the berry world, right there for me. Look at those sexy berries!

But it's a trick, a ploy. Sure, they're big and colored like a peak-of-ripeness strawberry... but they're not. Below the veneer of red they're white and hard. And frankly, they don't have much taste. I haven't looked this up, but I'm sure that this has all been engineered. It's marketing. Surely these berries are bred and hybridized...engineered perhaps, with the goal to make them red, big, and hard. Of size and color to attract the consumer, a 6 on the Mohs scale for safe transport.

But I can't really blame the producers. It's a market economy and they strive to give us what we want - or at least what's attractive to us. The problem is that, even though I know better, I'm addicted to appearances.

Eyes closed, a red-ripe field berry blows away an engineered one. No contest. The real experience of strawberries is their taste and bouquet. There's a visual element, sure, but that's not the most important quality. But there's something about me that causes my visual perceptions to override the others. Why is that?

It's endemic though. In fact, most of my life I aim for appearances rather than more essential qualities. I want to look like my life is together, thoughtful, controlled and ordered. (It's SO not) I'm overly aware of how others might perceive me, and I craft my responses and image to illicit a favorable reaction from others. I protect myself from being hurt, reduce my relational bruising. I'm the super-market berry. Nice exterior, but hard and flavorless.

The most satisfying and freeing relationships I have are the ones where people really know me to the core. My issues, my faults, my unattractiveness; the real me, my internal world. They see my junk within and love me anyhow. I don't appear so attractive and grand, and I can be bruised easily. But those are the sweetest relationships - and I don't have many. They're not just casually packaged and picked up. They're cultivated, with great care, and they're work. But oh, the richness, flavor and satisfaction they can produce.

And, if that's true, consider for a moment that a relationship with God could be the pinnacle of satisfaction - where you can be most truly known, most deeply accepted, and most free to drop the tiresome engineering of personal appeal and be loved where you're at right now. That's dangerously sweet. Do you know him like that?

Next time you're in the produce section, let those big, attractive rock-berries remind you to take an introspective moment about your potentially sweetest relationships.

And go farther in to find the truly good ones.

The Generous Tree

The Generous Tree,
Arrayed in a veil of splendorous spring -
Color laden and at its glory's peak,
Looks down upon the humble earth
and says;
"Lowly ground unadorned,
Have my raiment now.
Let me clothe you; receive!"
It shivers down its envoys
to the dewy floor
and makes itself plain - for dirt's sake,
composing a lavish mosaic of singular hue.
And I marvel, reminded of an eternal spring
of generously lent royalty
showering down from above.

What you want, What you need.

I recently returned to my alma mater and was a little shocked, despite being warned, that the whole place had changed. Most of the academic buildings have undergone minor changes, mainly improvements and updates, but the big shocker was the on-campus housing.

Granted, most of the dorms, or "residence halls" as the PR spinners prefer, which have been replaced were quite due. Overdue, actually. Now attractive, imposing new buildings, mostly connected into a rambling conglomeration of architecture and landscaping, make up the new character of the my old University.

From the outside, it's a lovely change from the... well, whatever that spate of horrid 70's architectural aesthetic was called. Let's call it "Awefulism." The new buildings are modern, pleasing and impressive.

While I was there for my visit I learned that there was a massive effort to find out what the students living on campus wanted most from their housing. This data was then used to create and taylor a system which would be the most attractive and enjoyable living situation possible. They wanted to give the students what they wanted.

I even learned that there were 10 groups from other universities who were there to study the designs and theories behind the new setup. With all the research and planning, my alma mater's efforts are being held up as something to model other colleges after. Give them what they want!

The problem? Students don't like it.

Not so long ago, the standard "dorm" was made up of 4 basic areas.
1. A public bathroom with multiples sinks, toilets and shower booths.
2. A large public lounge/study area.
3. Humble box-shaped rooms which were usually shared by 2 students
4. A long hallway to connect it all together.

And I hated it.

I hated it because I had to share a small space with a pungent crazy Swiss guy my Freshmen...oops - First Year. (more PR corrections) I hated it because it made me interact with people I normally wouldn't, walk down the long hall and listen to their music, deal with their issues. I hated it because there were people who left the bathroom areas in terrible shape.

What I wanted then is what students want now - and are getting: Self-contained apartment-style housing on campus. A small room to yourself, your own bathroom or shared between you and your suite-mates, who live in one or two adjacent personal rooms. Some have a kitchenette. Some have a common area for the suite-mates, though it is very small. A hallway door which leads to the common area or entryway, with another set of doors to close off your apartment.

Students' chief complaint about new Residence Hall life? They don't know anyone. Is it any wonder? Apart from coming and going to class, there's not much reason to leave your personal space. Some floors hardly have any common areas

After so much survey and study, what they wanted apparently wasn't what they need. Why is it that so often what I want and what I need are totally different?

In my campus living experience, it forced me to interact with different people from different viewpoints, upbringing and cultures. Even if I didn't build deep relationships, there was a community there, a common experience. There was an availability. Doors were often open and barriers to interaction were few. These were great things for me, they were things I needed - but not things I wanted initially.

Is giving us what we want the best policy? What do we lose in doing so?

Consider the revolution in online social networking groups like MySpace and Facebook. They give you a space to make your own, post pictures, music, lists and updates about your doings and goings-on. A self-made window to your personality and personhood. You share yours and you can track your friends'.

A step further is Twitter, which is primarily status updates. It's all about answering the question "what are you doing right now?" You send in regular updates, via some kind of internet application (computer, mobile phone, text messenger...etc) about what you're doing, your attitude and interactions, you're location... all the little stuff. All the updates you make are posted to anyone who is tracking you.

In this way you can track any friend or family member (or moviestar) who is sending twitter updates and learn what they're doing, where they're doing it, why...etc. If you go to twitter's webpage you can watch a great little movie that explains the application.

Here's an interesting quote from the video: "It makes us feel connected, and a part of each other's lives."

And that's what we want, isn't it? To feel connected to others? To be a part of someone's life?

Here's the problem: Proximity is not Community. Information is not Intimacy.

What we want is to enjoy all the benefits and good stuff without having to deal with the rest. We want the distilled package. We want to enjoy community and intimacy with other people, but the real deal is a mess. It's full of the rest of life. The boring stretches, the stuff that causes conflict and pain, the things that make us uncomfortable, and me not always being of sterling character either.

But community without real, deep and true knowledge of each other - good and bad - is just a city bus ride; common location, common direction - but nobody really knows you, or really cares about you. And they are certainly not interested in your junk. (try telling your problems to a bus full of strangers sometime) Rich, sweet community is being fully known and fully accepted, and you don't get there behind closed doors. It means getting into people's lives, into their room and letting them in yours (even if your place is a mess!)

And Intimacy isn't just information. I might know all kinds of information about a person, but it's a sham if there aren't any shared experience, time spent interacting and talking, laughing, crying and doing life together. My guess is that famous people experience this all the time. I'm sure they have people come up to them who feel an intimate connection because they have seen the star on the screen, read about their lives and followed their career. But that information hardly constitutes an intimate relationship and an assumption that it does becomes just weird and annoying. Knowing me and knowing about me are principally different.

We know what we want - but what do we need in order to get there?

I think you need a community in which you can be accepted for who you are, and give acceptance to others - flaws and messed-up-ness included, and go from there.

I think you need a person who can identify with your life, your struggles, your triumphs. Weep with you, rejoice with you. Someone who can know you intimately and love you despite all your junk. (and roll up sleeves to help you deal with it)

I've got a pretty good idea who and where. Care to go a bit deeper?

God Probably Doesn't Take London Mass Transit

In London and the UK, an atheist campaign recently kicked off featuring ads on buses that stated plainly "THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." There are also quotes on the tube. (London's excellent subway system)


Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist and professor was a driving force and contributor toward the campaign. Here's his interesting quote about the matter.

"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion"

Anathema, for you thought-free religious rubes, means "Something or someone that a person vehemently dislikes." (For you very-religious folks, vehement means "showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, intense.')

So, according to Dawkins' quote, the campaign will cause thinking to happen, particularly among the religious - who completely avoid it if possible. Religious people are those that don't think their position through, apparently. Religion and thought are incompatible.

Such statements can only be (honestly) made if you don't really care to think about it. Consider this: According to the wikipedia article on him, Dawkins' perspective is that

"faith - belief that is not based on evidence − is one of the world's great evils."

Faith, per Dawkins, is belief NOT based on evidence.

That is a strange assertion because no one - in the history of the world - has ever believed something without any evidence at all. NO ONE. Why?

Belief in something requires at least some knowledge, information, context or data (which are evidence) in the object of belief, otherwise you wouldn't even be aware of it. It would be like saying that I have faith that lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ is true. Apart from the familiarity I have with the alphabet, lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ bears no reference to an object or idea for me. No one has told me to what it refers or does, or in what context lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ might exist. I have no evidence for belief that it's real because I have no information. (I just hit my fist on the keyboard a couple of times.)

He's saying faith is belief in something you have no knowledge of.

To say I have faith in something but have no evidence for it is a strange claim. It's impossible.
Oops - Dawkins is trying to break down the door of the wrong house. What he really means, I think, is this: religious faith is based on evidence that Richard Dawkins rejects as reliable, accurate and true.

Is all evidence equal? No way. The real debate is not whether Religious Folks have no evidence for their position. (or the Atheist) No - the debate, fundamentally, is about what constitutes good, true and accurate evidence for your beliefs. And that is absolutely a different question, with different rules. It's the question of Epistemology, which deals with how we know what we know, and why we think we can know it.

Dawkins, as a staunch advocate of Naturalism and a scientist, probably works on the epistomological premise that acceptable evidence is limited to that which can be scientifically tested, observed and measured. In short - the physical world. (though I'd argue he's pretty handcuffed even in that realm)

Therefore any evidence for a religious position that cannot be subject to scientific testing is non-evidence to him. "Sorry chap, that doesn't count."

But that's where the debate should lie. Why does Richard Dawkins reject as true anything that cannot be repeatable in a laboratory? For that matter - why should we accept as true anything that happens in a laboratory? That's the bedrock debate, and different answers to what is legitimate evidence will lead us to different assumptions and beliefs. Should all evidence have equal weight? By no means. But should only one type of evidence be considered legitimate? I don't think so.

So, for my reaction to the buses and Hawkins' quotes above. Let me make 3 points.

1. Statements like "thinking is anathema to religion" are unhelpful generalizations and mindless. That's a sophmoric statement - the epochs of human history are littered with great scientists, philosophers and thinkers who were and are "religious." (Perhaps Dawkins might not believe they were actually real - from a strict scientific method perspective - you can't prove any of them existed. You have to jump outside repeatable, measureable, physical evidence in a controlled environment.) Dawkins career alone proves this to be false - he has to spend a lot of time diffusing the arguments of his opponents.

2. I Appreciate their honesty. "God PROBABLY Doesn't Exist" Thank you. Neither Richard Dawkins nor anyone else can say with certainty that He doesn't. (we're back to epistemology again - sorry.) 'Probably' is as strong as an honest atheist can get. Theists too, for that matter. From the physical, scientifically observable evidence, you can't make a conclusive statement about anything, really. Chemicals, atoms, gravity, light, mass, heat - all our scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that the physical "laws" all function every place and in every time as they do in our tiny slice of what we can observe. And that slice is tiny. No human knowledge is comprehensive and so all people (including atheistic scientists) operate on the basis of faith. The question is how good your knowledge is. (see my previous entry on "The Fact of Faith")

3. If the bus ads do spark more thinking and conversation and debate - huzzah! Bring it! God does exist, or he doesn't. You cease to exist when you die, or you don't. You actions matter or they don't. Regardless of which side you land on, let's agree that not choosing to engage in these questions is the worst possible choice. It is the most important quesiton. If this is your only life, don't go through it without some serious contemplation. If there is a life ever-after and your choices matter for eternity - even more so.

Oh, and my dear Atheists... Regarding the ad: I'm enjoying my life immensely, thank you. I do worry though - not that you might be right, because in the end if you are - it won't matter to me. I cease to be and I've lost nothing. (actually, the reality will be that we all lose everything) What I worry about, for your sake, is that Christian Theism is probably right and in the end, being wrong will matter completely and eternally. It seems too heavy a gamble. And I care about you, truly.

But, regarding all this, why stop with skepticism about God? There's a lot more to be unsure about!

Let's quote another Brit:

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young skeptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." - G K Chesterton

Here are my suggestions, if we're going to be completely honest...

A Taste for More

You and I are sensate creatures, but just barely.

At the core of who we are, we are hard-wired with a desire to have our senses engaged, pleasurably so. And not just to a small degree - we want to have full and rich sensations which keep pace with our capacities.

Just think of the vital role in our lives played by simple things such as music, beauty, the flavor of food, and the smells and textures of the world. Without them, wouldn't life be a cruel march to the grave? Simple existence just isn't enough for human kind, we want richness and depth. It's how we're made.

I recently heard a story on public radio about the importance of and distinctions between taste and smell. The doctor being interviewed dealt with patients who had lost most or all of their capability to smell. Most of them due to some kind of brain trauma or disease. This loss was life-altering.

For many of these unfortunate people, two things came as a result; depression and paranoia.

Much of the depression in their lives was tied to food - which, if you think about it, is a major component of daily life, in time, energy and attention. As it turns out, around 90% of food's bouquet, aroma and flavor - most of the experience really - is tied up in smell, not taste. Taste works on a more rudimentary level, dealing with texture and general food information. (salty, sweet, bitter, sour...etc)

Without smell, everything is like oatmeal - the unflavored kind. Bland and unappealing. You and I are probably unaware of just how much joy is derived from the experience of eating. (And may we never know, if loss is the only way to know the extent!)

The paranoia set in, they said, through fears stemming from a lack of info. Did I bathe adequately, or do I have severe body odor? Is this milk bad? Is this meat putrid? What if something catches on fire and I can't smell it? Could there be a gas leak in my house?...etc. You can't be sure about those things without the ability to discern scent, and you can see how paranoia would creep in if you couldn't.

All this just from the loss of the ability to smell!

I write all this to reinforce this thought: Our senses are an absolutely critical component to our well being, and our enjoyment of life.

Now, let me propose something. Something simultaneously horrible and thrilling.

What if you were born with almost no sense of smell (and therefore taste)? You wouldn't really understand what you were missing. Someone could try to explain to you what more there might be. That would be horrible, even if you didn't really realize what you were missing. Horrible because you were so far away from what you are capable of experiencing.

But what if some brain surgeon could fix the problem? What if, after years of eating food that never had taste, the next day you could enjoy the full experience of the culinary arts?! You would be overwhelmed and shocked - and thrilled to no end! Every new food would be a symphony of joy and sensation. (with the notable exception of lima beans, which are irredeemable.) Adjectives would abound!

What if that's us - the whole human race? But the damage is not limited to the sense of smell... it effects every physical sense and every aspect of our lives - physically, mentally and spiritually. This means we might not even know there is anything wrong with us, and we're used to living this way - in a starkly limited capacity. There would be so much more we'd be capable of, if everything was as it should be. Someone could try to explain to us what the full restoration would be like, but the words would fall short since we have so little context. Horrible!

This is the reality of living in a world that is damaged - a world that has been cursed. In biblical terms - a "fallen" world, detached from God and distorted from what it was meant to be. We, because we are also fallen and damaged, don't know what it's like to be fully as we were meant to be either - fully human, meeting our fully capacity physically, mentally and spiritually. Because he knows, God could describe to us what that might look and feel like, but the words would be lost on us. What a sad state.

Here again is the thrilling part: What if we can be restored?

Think about that proposition just in the context of deadened physical senses: If we all experience our senses now at a tiny, tiny fraction of our full capacity, yet we still derive intense joy and pleasure at that meager level, how much more pleasurable and joyful would complete sensation provide? It would be indescribable!

Try to recall the most savory, rich and abundantly wonderful food you've ever had. Relive those first few seconds of experience and sensation, the surprise at its excellence, your delight as more and more of its complexities and flavors reveal themselves to you. You linger on it, savoring that first bite - utterly pleased and satisfied for one delicious moment... but it's only a moment.

What if that moment could be magnified exponentially? A thousand times? A million times? In intensity, quality and duration? Would you want that? Shoot, I would. Words would not describe that level of pleasure - elation, rhapsody, rapture, bliss, thrill, ecstasy? Nothing would capture it.

I want that kind of pleasure bonanza. I really like those moments of deep joy. I'd love more - especially if it was massively better! If that is restoration, that's what I want. Add to that the idea that it's not only our physical senses that would be restored, but every aspect of our person. Everything would be amazingly intensely better and ridiculously shockingly good. All of life would be elation after elation. (and magically delicious)

Next question: when you think of Heaven, what comes to mind? Fogginess maybe? Mistiness, perhaps? (London in Winter?) Boring, probably. But not intensely thrilling. Deeply pleasing, Pervasively enjoyable. (To be fair, there isn't too much detailed description about what Heaven - restored creation and humanity - would look like. Like trying to explain ripe, fresh strawberries to someone whose palate can only perceive texture, perhaps any detailed descriptions would amount to words wasted?)

I wonder about what restoration of our full personhood would look like. The Bible is pretty clear that we live in a world that is cursed, and we are as well. Death and rot pervade. But this is not as it was intended, and God will one day restore things to the way they were meant to be. (for those that love him and want restoration - but it's on His terms.)

I'm theorizing about the extent of our diminished ability to sense and feel, and what the reversal might look like, but here's the real point - shouldn't we want that change? Shouldn't we long for restoration - once we're aware it's available?

(Totally Parenthetical Get-Me-In-Hot-Water-Thought: Sometime, I'd like to have a conversation with the deaf community about their reluctance to restore hearing to deaf folks, and shunning of those who do. I know it's a tight culture of sorts, but, very respectfully, I can't understand why individuals would pass on restoration of their hearing when it's possible. Are there any other disability groups that are so unwilling to let go of what they do not have?? If you gain what was lost, must you lose what you've got?)

Too often most of us are easily satisfied with our present deadened state. We chase after our diminished and broken (and sometimes inappropriate) means of satisfaction and experience when so much more is offered. Perhaps it's ignorance, perhaps it's fear of the surgeon's knife? We tend to not let go of what we have, good or bad, for what is not fully known. But here I am stepping on a popular quote from C.S. Lewis. He is talking about rewards given for behavior here, but I think it dovetails with my point. Why not let him speak:

Indeed, if we consider the
unblushing promises of reward and the
staggering nature of the rewards promised
in the Gospels, it would seem that Our
Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but
too weak. We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased.

"The Weight of Glory" - you should check it out, whatever you may believe.
Read the entire piece here: http://www.doxaweb.com/assets/doxa.pdf

In any case, my point is that we tend to have a bland view of what a restored world might hold for us. Peace and tranquility - sure, but we rarely consider that we will be fully ourselves again, and we were obviously intended to experience (if we just talk about the physical stuff) sights, smells, textures, sounds and tastes - far, far, FAR more fully than we do now. We rarely view Heaven in terms of richness, intensity and depth of those sensations, much less everything else. We make it boring. We should want more than we have, because in reality we have so little.

Nor should we want less! Some religions tell us that the way to happiness, or "oneness" or the goal we should strive for should be the abolition of our desires. Whoa! Not what I want! Quite the opposite. To borrow a line from my favorite band; "I want to feel and then some, I have five senses, I need thousands more - at least!" (Over the Rhine, The World Can Wait)

I want more, not less.

But more isn't only what I want. I don't want every feeling and sensation to simply be intensified. What I really want is intensification of joy and reduction (actually elimination) of pain and sadness and evil, not just higher highs and lower lows. (And herein lies a whole big topic of why no everyone goes to heaven and holiness and justice and sin and not-so-fun stuff. )

Is restoration something you want? Do you have a taste for more?



I don't have a tidy wrap up for these thoughts. And, for better or worse, there's more that could be brought out of this line of thought. But I'd love to know a couple things from you (O imaginary readers).

How happy do you want to be? Seriously.

What would you be willing to give to get there?

(Christians) Do you think there is something wrong with desiring happiness, or more intense joy and pleasurable experience? Why/Why not? How could unleashing those desire help? How could they hurt?

When you think of the concept and prospect of Heaven, what comes to your mind? Be honest.

What do you do with the reality of our mixed nature? We want good things, but we're bad too. How do you justify being part of a restored world? How do you know now where true and lasting satisfaction and happiness lie? (there are tons of counterfeits!)

Love to know your thoughts.

Spanglish

I've been watching a lot of children's television lately.

I've got a growing family, and the little ones like the morning cartoons. We let them watch public television because, frankly, most of the "kids" cartoons these days are just bad. Super violent, anti-adult and FRENETIC. Crazy constant ridiculous pace. It's no wonder kids can't pay attention to anything.

And then the commercials! Wow. They simply don't need to watch those. Since they don't, my kids aren't aware of how unhappy and unsatisfied they must be. Surely they must be unhappy and unfulfilled! If only they had xxxxxx. Over and over. Blah.

Anyhow, Public TV stuff is great. Nice shows, no commercials. But one growing trend has me scratching my head a little bit. Its seems that many of the shows want my kids to learn Spanish.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love for my kids to learn another language. I myself know just enough Spanish to get by - which has been pretty handy on several occasions. Spanish is a wonderful language, and I've found Spanish speaking peoples (generally) to be warm and welcoming.

But I'm not really sure about the intent of having morning cartoons, and especially the little "educational spots" in between shows, highlighting and teaching the Espanol Equivalents to English words and phrases. Why are they trying to teach my kids Spanish?

Is the goal to make the Spanish speaking population feel more welcomed and comfortable? To make the English speaking kids more accepting of the Spanish speaking population?

It's not really a big deal, but I am curious about the purpose of it. It's presence doesn't really bother me too much, but I can't clearly tell the intent the producers and writers have from watching it.

Maybe I'll ask write a letter and ask them some preguntas. (that's Spanish for questions)

the Fact of Faith

With the movie "Expelled" coming out, there is bound to be some reaction - even if for just a little while. Until the next celebrity stunt, political gaff or overly-reported tragedy.

With that in mind, I thought I'd throw out an idea about the concept of faith, and how it's far more a fundamental part of our lives, whether you are religious or not, than most people suspect. Let's start by defining some terms...

Here are some definitions of faith;
Oxford English Dictionary: Faith - noun 1. Complete trust or confidence
Dictionary.com: Faith - 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Here's a generalization, but it's generally true. Scientists and naturalists, for the most part, say that faith is blind; that it is the belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or - some might say in spite of the evidence. Mostly they are talking about religious faith, which, for most in their camp equates to someone choosing to believe that something (God, supernatural, spiritual...etc) exists even though there is no evidence or proof for it. To them, these people are to be pitied, or educated, or in some cases committed.

Blind faith. I think that is the phrase that many equate to belief. But let's step back a second and think about the nature of facts, knowledge and faith - especially their relationships to each other.

I don't like the Oxford definition above, because I think that the idea of complete confidence isn't really a reality for most people. In fact, I don't think that anyone operates on that level of confidence - if their honest.

Here's why - we're finite, and we therefore have limited knowledge. Really limited, if you care to think about it. Of all the information in all the universe, a brash claim is that we would even know a tenth of 1 percent of it all. No way.

So when we say we have a certain knowledge of facts, we're making an inherently limited (but assumably reasonable) claim. We can't gather information about something, for instance - a physical 'law' like gravity, in all possible places, times, conditions and circumstances. We never have a complete picture or truly comprehensive knowledge.

This doesn't mean we don't have knowledge, just that it's not complete. We can make reasonable assumptions and assertions based on repetition and consistency and therefore operate on a principle or law assuming it is true, but we can't say definitively that something like gravity is always as we observe it here and now - because we cannot test that claim in all places, in all times and under all circumstances. We have knowledge about the world around us, but it is inherently limited in it's scope.

Here we are even speaking about things like cold, hard science. Every theorem and experiment rests squarely on the shoulder of assumption. Reasonable assumptions for the most part. The chemist assumes that oxygen will behave in a certain way in certain circumstances, that a combination of two elements will achieve a certain reaction, that chemical X will behave as it has in the past in the same situation. Does the chemist absolutely know? No, not really. But he is reasonably confident it will, otherwise he won't be mixing potentially deadly ingredients together.

Or scientifically, let's push a little father out of the lab. The reason good science is good is because it has been tested and refined to a very high degree of consistency. Assumptions are then a pretty safe bet. When we shoot a spacecraft off to another planet, I doubt that the project includes repeated tests and experiments to determine the force of gravity that the Earth imposes. We don't keep checking the mass of the planet and prove every time how big it is and how much it weighs. That data has been collected, tested and refined to a point where NASA probably just has some data on hand which it adds to the plan. There is trust that the data - which they themselves have not produced and tested - is good and correct.

Here's what I think faith is: reasonable trust based on incomplete knowledge.

If you'll accept that definition of faith, then let's agree that faith is a part of everyone's life - yes even the noble scientists.

There's a balance between both ends of that equation. Knowledge means that there is information collected - it's not complete, and so there is a chance that it doesn't conform exactly to reality - i.e. that the knowledge is untrue. But it's gathered and used to process our action. The extent of that knowledge and it's nearness (or distance) to comprehensiveness will then, if we are reasonable, effect our level of trust.

For example - should I walk out on the icy pond?

My knowledge is incomplete. I don't know if it will hold me for sure. But I know that it's been pretty cold for the last week. I assume that water generally begins to freeze around 32 Fahrenheit. I see that it is frozen all the way to the edge. It looks thick. I weigh 200 pounds. But I can't know for sure if it will hold my wait.

My trust level should be informed by reason. If all the information I have seems to be accurate and compelling to me that it will be safe, I'll enter into an action reflecting faith, or trust. I'll walk out. But if my data is less sound. (there was a warm-up this weekend...the ice looks a little thin) I might not be willing to take an action of faith. I might opt for more information gathering - like throwing a heavy rock out or putting some of my weight on the edge and observing.

In the reasonability component there is also the element of risk vs gain. I have much more to lose when crossing an icy lake than when, say, trying a new flavor of yogurt. But put one of my children out on the ice, badly hurt, and my reasonable level of risk will change.

When things go wrong is when faith is unreasonable, or when the an action or belief is reasonable, but the information and assumptions were far from reality.

Unreasonable faith is the realm of insanity or delusion. That's trust and action DESPITE the information, despite the risk. I knew a mental patient that could verbalize that eating random mushrooms may kill him, but he ate them anyway. (he lived, but still didn't see the connection) That's an unreasonable action.

Reasonable faith can still result in a very poor outcome. Take for instance the 2 crane collapses this year in New York City. Workmen loaded and used the cranes - which passed inspection - and reasonably operated in faith that all would work as it should. Their actions, though completely sensible, resulted in calamity because the reality was very different than their information and assumptions. The inspectors either overlooked problems, or worse - turned a blind eye to them.

So, all day, you and I take faith-based actions. Whenever I choose something, unless something is wrong with my ability to process and evaluate, I am exhibiting trust at some level in the information I have, which is not complete.

The bigger questions then become:
How incomplete/sufficient is my knowledge?
How reasonable is my trust in what I know?


Parenthetical thought: (the opposite of reasonable faith would be unreasonable fear. Healthy people don't operate this way. I could live in total fear all the time because of my limited knowledge. Do I know for sure that no burglar will enter my house while I sleep? Do I know for sure that a fire won't start in the living room? Do i know for sure that no meteor may crash into my office while I work? Do I know that someone on a cell phone might cross the yellow line and hit me? That my hamburger isn't laced with poison? That my phone isn't tapped? No. No to all. I don't know for sure that these things won't happen. But they are unlikely. I take small precautions like locking my door, installing smoke detectors and paying attention when I drive. But I don't live in a bunker, I don't distrust everyone. That we don't know anything for absolutely certain shouldn't completely prevent us from any action. It just means we take precautions about the more likely risks, or small efforts toward unlikely events [life insurance] and know that the rest is rare and nothing that should debilitate us. If we can't make that distiction we're back to the mental hospital or in a life of reclusive internal self-incarceration.)

So all that being said - let's turn to Religion.

If faith is a component of everything we do, religious belief shouldn't be any different. The major mistake people make is in assuming that only in the realm of spirituality and religion is there no information available to make reasonable decisions.

The fact gathering may look a little different than something like genetics, but not unlike other things we trust in - like the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a president. I have no personal experience with that - just information from others who were there, and corroboration.

Religious Faith is just a sub-category of faith in general, but the same principles apply. What information do you have? How reliable is it's source? Are there others who will corroborate the information?

Where science and religion really have their differences is not really in the realm of reasonability - it's in the area of presumption about what constitutes valid information, which is a whole different topic. (of volumes of books)

Naturalism would say that the physical is all there is and there can be nothing more. Religions - in particular Christianity - would say that there is also an immaterial, super-natural aspect to the world with a very real God at the center of it all. Your presumptions about that will play a major role in what information you consider to be valid and what choices you will make.

And when you evaluate the risk versus gain factor, this becomes the most important matter in our lives. Our lives here and now, and our next life - if indeed there is one - will be fundamentally accurate or catastrophically wrong based on what we assume about the nature of reality and the faith-based-actions (which is really all there is) which we make as a result.

No reasonable faith comes without information - but information needs to be tested. To walk through life giving it no thought, no evaluation at all is too big of a risk. It's a blind walk across a barely frozen pond.

It's Elementary

I saw a "readability rating" graphic on a friend's blog. Apparently this website checks your blog's readability level and determines how smart you have to be to comprehend it. So I did it for mine.

What I was hoping for was this:



That would be nice, wouldn't it? To have a blog that you have to be a genius to appreciate? Ego stroking - yeah.

Of course, what I actually got was this:



Hmm. Should I be disappointed? Insulted?

Should I up the difficulty of my verbiage? Reduce amicability toward the puerile? Aim for more esoteric and enigmatic synthesis and structuring within my circumlocutory sentiments, expressed herein?

Nah. Let the 3rd graders come and weigh in, if their moms let them.

Almost Shocking

Wow. It's been a while since I smelled that smell.

I have a studio art degree and during my college years I enjoyed a wide variety of classes in the fine arts. One that was particularly fun, given my penchant for pyromania, was sculpture. Why? Because they had arc welders. Big old welders that could easily weld together thick hunks of steel. Nothing quite like welding - it's an all senses experience; the crackling sound, the eerie light through the visor, the sensation of heat and tiny bits of very recently molten steel bouncing off you (mind the hair!) and the smell. Hard to describe the smell. Kind of an ionized, burnt-air smell. You can even taste it in the air.

Anyhow - that's what my kitchen smelled like today. Actually, with the exception of the heat and molten bits, I was taken back to the bowels of the art building. Wow.

A few years ago we replaced the plugs in our kitchen. Still not sure quite how the guy before us wired it all - weird. I'm no expert either. But above our sink there was a little flouresant light that never really worked. I was 99 and 44/100 % sure that when we redid the outlets, we cut the line to the light. Oops.

So - life lesson learned. Always assume that the wires are live, and kill the breakers. I didn't.

Wanting to take that light out to make room from some wine glass hanger things ("things" the verbal equivalent of large gap filling foam, while we're in the hardware/homeowner theme)
I grabbed my trusty Cutco Super Shears, which really are amazing. They cut through anything. Then, with 99.44% confidence, I went for both the black and white electrical wires in one shot.

It was SPECTACULAR.

Happily, I was unharmed. Unshocked - electrically speaking, but shocked by the eerie light, crackling and that certain smell. Unexpected. I was also a bit wide eyed to see the state of my super shears. There are high carbon steel, and are at least 1/8th of an inch thick on each side at the cutting surface. It's been a while since I've seen such nice arc marks. Check it out:

Hooray for non-conductive plastic handles. Brilliant!

Not that I have any readers, but if you are counting that's two molten metal accidents here at my house. (see the grill entry a year or so back) At least ones that are worthy of blogging. I wonder what will complete the hat trick?

So tomorrow, when I go to cap those two wires, before I try to strip the wire you better believe I'll be shutting down the breaker to the kitchen - to the whole house might be better. Or the neighborhood.

Drug Free School Zones?

What's the deal with some signs?

Most signs have a directly discernible intent, whether it be to advertise a business, or inform a driver, or give direction.

There are some signs though, that I'm not really sure about. I see one of them around quite a bit. It's the "Drug Free School Zone" sign. You've seen it. (here's an iStockphoto of one)

I don't really understand this.

Who is this for? What's the purpose of such a sign? Is it true?

If this is meant to be a statement of location or condition, akin to "This is the Santa Fe Trail" then how do I even believe it? Is this school zone really drug free? How do they know that it's true? Do they regularly do drug screenings? Go house to house and make sure everyone is clean? Just putting up a sign doesn't make it so.

And who is this for anyway? Passers by, homeowners, school kids...drug dealers? Assuming that the function of a sign is to inform, it's hard to know just who the audience for this one is.

In terms of supply and demand, this could be an advertisement for nefarious characters. "Hey, we've got no drugs here in this area... the market is wide open for you, the drug dealer looking to expand your market, and there's no competition here yet - hence the sign ... welcome!"

Wouldn't it be more effective and honest if there were a sign like "increased drug law enforcment area" or "drug related offenses doubled" or something. It's the drug free part that seems silly to me. The sign just sits, whether a drug deal is happening right there or not.

If it's talking about a law - well, in terms of illicit and illegal drugs, aren't all zones of the US supposed to be drug free? (Unless, perhaps, you're a peyote toting Native American) This sign doesn't really create or inform of any special laws that I'm aware of. Why create a sign like this? It's not like there are signs for "Drugs OK School Zone." Like designated smoking location. This is a Dooby Do Zone. Go ahead, pot head. Mmm-no.

So, I don't get it. It's it just wishful thinking? Saying something in the hopes that it will self-produce that happy state? Not sure.

Just a small question. One of those things around that I don't really understand, but thought it would be nice to not understand it together. Not that anyone is reading this.

A Year Later

Not quite a year ago, my Dad died.

Just wanted to re-visit some perspective on it, which I still hold to. Lots of my friends seem to have been going through similar circumstances, so I wanted to plunk this down.

From January 8, 2007

It is a strange thing to lose a parent – to see your father die. All the family is here at home making funeral arrangements for a man who we half expect to come walking down the steps at any moment to join us. It is the finality of the parting that feels most strange. As I write, I recall that exactly one week ago we were all together celebrating the new year and a delayed Christmas. How different the gathering in the living room feels on this Monday.

My Dad began to take his faith more seriously during the last 5 years. I had no doubts as to where he is. I also had the honor or writing him a tribute letter before his open heart surgery in May. There have been many things leading up to this week that provided some closure for all the family. Still – we feel the loss.

People will often say (and I’ve probably been guilty of it in the past) that “death is natural – it’s a part of life.” It is not true. We were not meant to die, to leave work undone and part company with those we love. Death is most un-natural. We are made for eternity and for relationship. And so, right now despite our pain and grief, we see Jesus’ gifts of life, eternity and future reunions as all the more amazing and beautiful. The finality of death and separation has been revoked for those that know God. We feel it now, but I will see my Dad again. We will have a very happy reunion and an eternity of relationship. That is what awaits us. How gracious our God is!

But for now, I will cry. Quite a bit.

Fuzzy Lines

I recently rented and watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, and despite the bloodiness of it, rather enjoyed it. Very well done. But this isn't a movie review entry.

Here's what is interesting to me in this - the viewpoints and reactions that I've read about the film. Let me zoom in on one that made me laugh out loud.

If you look up Apocalypto on iTunes and read reviews, you'll find an entry by Baern titled "Decent movie. Highly misrepresents the Mayans though" What I want to pick on is one of his comments. I'll quote it...

"Another issue is how the sacrifice ritual is seriously misrepresented and exaggerated. Mayans didn't sacrifice a bunch of people all in one day; they sacrificed one person every couple weeks or so. The movie makes them look like bloody monsters!"

The movie makes them look like monsters!? I had to laugh at the absurdity of it. Here's the logic:

Gibson portrayed Mayans as monstrous. How?
He depicted them as performing multiple human sacrifices in one day.
Baern says this is unfair: They are not bloody monsters. Why?
In reality, they only sacrifice about 2 human beings each month.

!?!

That's what I call a fuzzy line. (Granted, this was probably an off the cuff, not too thought out review, but whoa!) Baern is saying that the Mayans were not really monstrous, they didn't kill large numbers of people to appease their gods, they killed them at a much lower rate - only one every 2 weeks or so.

Baern seems to think that what makes a human-sacrificing culture egregious is found in the quantity of human sacrifices, not in the fact that human sacrifices are taking place. C'mon Mel - I can't believe you depicted Mayans as cruel people. It's not like the killed people every day! Just some days. Jeez! For Baern, Mel crossed a line he'd drawn.

We get what I call a fuzzy line when we begin making moral distinctions based on subjective opinions of "appropriateness." The lines seem to revolve around numbers, severity, or frequency of some kind of behavior and what I think is too many, too much or too often - it's fuzzy because people draw the line of right and wrong so differently.

I think it's human nature that, much of the time, we'll draw our own lines of "here is where too far, too much begins" but we base the moral location of those lines just below where we perceive ourselves on the continuum of morality.

In other words - when we decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, we rarely will self-condemn. We consider ourselves pretty good, and "wrong" must be something less than our own personal goodness.

The problem with that is that we all have different perspective on what's too far. If we base right and wrong simply on personal preference, should we condemn perverts, or violent men or financial scammers?

You could, and people do, argue that what we do is go with the good old American majority system. That would counter "obviously" egregious behavior. Let the voice of the people determine what's right. We're call something normative if there's a majority that agree it's ok. Of course, this thinking breaks down when the majority is wrong. (which, I suspect is a lot more often than we care to admit - consider 80's hairstyles) If we based our laws and morality on such a system, we'd have no such thing as speed limits. We might also have a problem when it comes to slavery. The majority thought it was good. The majority was wrong.

What we need are non-subjectives in terms of right and wrong. We need someone outside of ourselves to establish objective rules, truth, right and wrong. We need a standard to measure by.

I recently installed baseboards in a bedroom of my house. If I had a guy making cuts for me on the compound miter saw and I was telling him how many inches and at what angles I need the cuts, I would in no way want to have subjectivity about how long an inch is. I was us to operate on the same system, with the same establishment of standards. Otherwise, I would probably get some rather useless pieces of baseboard.

I think the same is true for those fuzzy lines of morality. Baern's complaint about Apacolypto was in terms of how many human sacrifices made a culture barbaric. Two per month, to him, didn't seem that horrible.

The presence of human sacrifices makes the society barbaric. The conversation about how many they make falls under the heading of frequecy, not in the debate of whether it is monstrous or not.

The conversation about whether we are, as human beings, good and righteous seems (in my mind at least) to be pretty clearly answered. (look at history!) When I compare myself to others, I think I'm talking about he wrong issue. Complicity and comparison are two different things. I think we would be better served if we talked a little bit less about comparitive morals, and talked a little bit more about the fact that we're all in the same camp and don't measure up to the standard of Good and Rightous and Whole. Those are more productive and more interesting conversations.

Murk

Oh murky heart:
What lurking monsters lie
twisted and billowing
beneath your solemn surface?

Only to me faintly known.

Still they seem;
Unseen and poised.
Until unbid perturbants disturb
their tulmultuous serenity,
and extract a toothy toll!

Cooling, clearing water come!
That these muddy monsters,
plain made, may be speared!
By some Fisherman of men.

And I'll be fully known!

30

I think this is my 30th post.

If this were my job, it would only be about a month's worth at 1/day. Perhaps I don't have much to say - or perhaps in each blog I say too much. Long-windedness. Ugh.

Right now I'm in Colorado. (which, incidentally, some native Coloradans will emphatically insist that you should pronounce incorrectly. Why anyone would want to take a nice, open and pleasant Ahh sound [as in Avocado] and replace it with a hyper-nasal American Eah [as in yeah] is beyond me. Good night! We make such gross vocalizations in the US as it is!)

Ok - shorter John, shorter.

Right now I'm in Colorado. Been here most of the summer. One of the things I think I like most isn't really attached to the state. It's the sky.

Perhaps I've had more time to notice. Perhaps the flatness just before the mountains makes it more accessible to the eye. Perhaps it's better here? (altitude?)

In any case, the sky just seems to beckon me to look - and snap a few photos now and again. I've seen many spectacular sunsets, rainbows, storm systems, billowing clouds, cobalt skies... it's been pretty soul-satisfying.



I remember a bunch of years ago, again in Color(eah)do, I was camping in a local river canyon with some friends. I've been in the country before, but never quite this remote - far, far from any other lights. It was the first time I fully grasped what the term "milky way" pertained to. (other than the chocolate encased fluffy whatever-it-is) I had no idea that there were that many stars visible to us. It really was a creamy swathe in the sky. I was DAZZLED by the heavens above. Innumerable, Incredible, and sadly - Invisible, at least for most of us, most of the time.

Doesn't it seem ironic that the little lights that man makes, so obscure the great lights of the heavens above? The garish eclipses the glorious?

It's been a refreshment for me to again lift up my eyes and look to the heavens this summer - day or night. Our little lights, our little glories just don't have the awe-ing power that a breathtaking sunset has. Or the sensory feast of a fast moving evening thunderstorm. Or the canopy of glimmering, exploding stars - stretched and spinning and the farthest reaches of my eyes.

When's the last time you stopped, looked up and took it in? We're walking around on a Master's canvas, and we so infrequently take a moment to absorb the inexhaustible brilliance in which we are enveloped. Oh - sad, sad we.

Bird in Hand

I'm writing this from Colorado. (whoo-hoo!)

Every two years or so I travel to Colorado for work, staying there for a significant amount of time. I love it here. If you've never visited, you should. I'll leave it at that, because Colorado is only the context for my comments, not the subject.

Two years ago here in Colorado I was sitting about 15 feet up in a tree. I had some time during a training session where I was challenged to go reflect on my personal life and how I was doing; spiritually, emotionally, relationally...etc. There was a beautiful and climbable tree nearby and I figured that was just as nice a place to think about myself than any. I was wrong.

What happened was that I wound up just soaking in the natural world around me. I couldn't quite stay focused on personal inventory. I was too absorbed in the tree, the sound of the wind, the dappled heat of the sun. The front door of my mind was locked, and my (often odd and meandering) internal dialogue just wasn't happening. What I would discover later is that the lessons that day (and I think, most days) come better through the back door of our minds - informally and somewhat unexpectedly, like an old friend popping in for a visit. My lesson that day would come, rather oddly, through two birds - the first of which landed just above me in the tree.

Very Large Tangential Aside: I like the idea of back door paradigm change. I like the analogy and I like the mechanisms of the uncontested entrance. What I mean is that when we want to challenge someone else's thinking and viewpoint, with the intent of changing their minds about some subject, we who are not so shrewd (especially Christians) tend to approach people at the front door. By this I mean, we come formally and directly - on topic with our best argument forward.

The problem? Door to door salesmanship is dead. Growing up at my parent's house, if people came knocking on the front door, we put our guards up. It would invariably be someone selling something, or wanting something, or a Jehovah's Witness. (there's a whole 'nuther blog topic!) Our goal when we answered the door was generally to dismiss them. (if we answered the door!)

Friends came to the back door. It was never locked. It was just a screen door - not a huge formal front. When someone showed up at the back door, we weren't guarded or defensive - we were ourselves. Maybe you didn't have a home like this, but I did.

If you really want someone to change their thinking it will generally happen incrementally, and you need to sneak in the new view around back - through a joke, a story, a movie, a comment - some vehicle that carries within it a different world-view. Rather like a Trojan horse, but not in a "let's decimate the city" way. Something appealing which has, implicit within it, a viewpoint or moral or message.

Stories do that. Movies do that. I think many people don't look at what they watch on TV or in theaters and ask the questions: What is the moral? The point? The Worldview. The fact is that all stories contain one, in one fashion or another. And there is the back door teaching and shift. When you or I watch or listen to or hear something without discerning what it teaches us, we are unconsciously hearing, at least in part, the viewpoint and beliefs of another. They are making their argument through the backdoor, where we are not consciously holding up our viewpoint to theirs and evaluating. It's coming in, albeit by increments, uncontested.

I'm not saying this is bad necessarily. What I'm saying is that it's shrewd and effective - over the long term. What I do think is bad is when you or I never give thought to this effect. I'm more likely to actually think about the viewpoint of, let's say, a Jehovah's Witness if it's given to me in a creative and gentle manner, rather than through a front door assault which makes put up defenses. I DO want to hear another person's viewpoint and worldview, but I don't want it to be forced and awkward and assaultive. I also don't want someone sneaking it in with zero awareness on my part. That feels like brainwashing and manipulation.

I guess what I'm saying is for real communication and life change to happen in the realm of how we understand the world, we're overly guarded to directness and underly aware of subtlety. What I need to do if I want to communicate effectively is knock on the back door. I need to communicate in a way that doesn't raise walls on the hearer's part, but also doesn't skulk about not showing my intent.

Maybe I'm nuts, but this is what I would most like to do. How? That's the real issue. At any rate, back to the tree I was in (it relates)....

So, a small bird (a sparrow, if you care) landed just above me in some of the branches. The first thing that popped into my head was "wouldn't it be cool if that bird would just come and land on my finger or hand - just for a few moments." So, on a whim, I said, out loud "God, it would be so cool if a bird would land in my hand - just a silly little selfish request." And I held out my hand - in an act of faith.

What happened next was unremarkable: My arm got tired.

Or maybe the bird took off. I can't really remember. Oh well, guess the answer was 'no.' A few minutes later I went back to the session I was a part of, having enjoyed the stay in the tree, but with little in terms of front door reflection on my life and what I need to work on.

The back door lesson came later, and I didn't even realize it right away.

That afternoon I rode my bike to pick up a rental car - I couldn't get a ride. The crazy thing is that it was well over 100 degrees that afternoon and in Colorado where there's much less atmosphere between you and the sun, it's intense.

Riding down a small side road I saw a bird in the middle of the street - another sparrow. As I approached I expected her to fly away. She didn't. As I passed I got a closer look - this little bird was probably overheated. It sat almost motionless with its mouth agape, baking on the asphalt. I kept riding another few seconds when compassion got the better of me.

There was no traffic so I went back. The bird never protested or fled as I approached, I scooped it up and place it in the coolness of some dense bushes at the side of the road. She never struggled or seemed afraid. She just hopped off, almost gratefully, into the shadows.

Probably a full 60 seconds later I answered the knock at the back door of my mind. "Hi!" said the friendly visitor, "Just stopping by to ask you a few things real quick: Didn't you pray a little while ago that you'd hold a bird in your hand? Hmm. Well, what's it tell you about yourself and about God (to whom you made this request) that your desire to experience something you thought would be neat for you was answered, a little different than you expected, and was used to secure the benefit of another?"

There were more lessons I learned from that little back-door experience than hours of front door contemplation could have yielded. And those lessons stick.

Stoicism, Blame, Speculation, Blindness, Absurdity and the News

Virginia Tech just happened a week ago. April 16, 2007.

For my part, I am shocked - but not surprised. This sort of thing fits right into my world view, so I am not taken off guard by these events, but I am horrified and wounded by them.
I've cried a bit, even more so because I have friends who work there - friends who personally knew students that were killed.

Since this has dominated the news media for the past week, I've about had it with a few characteristics of the networks and news mills as they drone on and on. Yes, I need to know that it happened. Yes, I want to know more fully the details of these events. Yes, it is all worthy of commentary and processing. Yes. But...

There are a few things about the news media that have been the passing of the kidney stone for me this week, and I guess (to push the simile too far) that this is the place where the stone hits the water for me. This will be where I get them out of my system. Relief at last! Some you will think unfair, irrelevant or unlikely to change - but this is my blog. Go write your own.

So - as per the title of this installment....

Stoicism. When I first began to realize just how gigantically tragic this shooting spree was, not to mention the methodical manner in which is was carried out, I realized this was a horror we've not yet known - well, we have, but to a scale we've not yet experienced. In this case, what I wished for was someone on the TV to shout "Oh no! This is unbelievable! There is something terribly wrong with this world! This is horrible, absolutely horrible! Oh God, please help them." and weep. Or have an expression of anguish, or tears, or be visibly sickened - something - anything.

I could see some emotion, or hear it. But for news like this I just wish there was a value for empathy, expression and appall. The anchors were so controlled and composed. The soundbites so polished and formal. When there is a tragedy, I want someone who will feel it with me, I want someone to weep for that which is unjust and terrible. I don't want a composed professional. I want someone who will be human and feel it deeply.

That one is all me, and I know this isn't something that will likely change. I just hate that the rawness and emotion of it gets filtered into a news blurb. Unfair you say? - maybe.

Blame. That's really the point - right? At least that's what comes out of the gates pretty early. The shooter killed himself, so whom shall we blame?

Within hours I heard/read/saw reports on things like: The inferior-to-other-schools' security on campus. The lack of an immediate lockdown orders. The ease of purchasing weapons in Virginia. The mother, the father. That he wasn't expelled for previous issues. The mental health system not confining him. His fellow students lack of interaction with him....on and on.

Message: It's about who we can blame.

A friend and co-worker of mine said it well. He mentioned that the news, and many people, seem to take the view that the world is not messed up, and for the few things that seem to be amiss, if we just have the right systems in place it can be perfect. No it can't. No way. We live in a corrupted world, and systems of control and safety are good, but they can't change the very nature of the world. We need something beyond us for that.

But - it's much more convenient to blame someone or some thing - or better yet: some system for screwing up in this case. It's not that this world is fallen, it's just that X screwed up. And now, back to our illusions of goodness. Perhaps this is more of an American bubble. We don't really know pain and chaos like many other places in the world.

Speculation. I'll keep it short. It seemed like, in an effort to fill space, that the media is willing to throw any speculations it can out there to keep you roped in. After all, the news really is about having the latest, greatest news, so they can have the most viewership, so their sponsors (and more sponsors) will generate more revenue.

So, since it's a business and the business is selling (semi-sensationalized) information (sometimes true information) the model seems to be 1. report what you know 2. Make lots of show-stopping speculations and leaps about what you don't and 3. buttress correct (or close) speculations with later facts as they arise, ignoring your ridiculous guesses.

I'd rather have truth, undressed-up. But that doesn't seem to be sufficient anymore.

Blindness. See above a bit. Let's face it, right up there with journalistic integrity and the noble desire to disperse truth the the world, there is the need for ratings. Perhaps for some that is really the greatest commandment. To be most watched. (sponsored, payed, profitable - it's the same ball of wax)

So - to show the tapes the killer made? Are you blind? Don't you understand? Those tapes legitimize him. They encourage others. They validate his actions (not condone, but validate) and give him a voice to the masses. He was crazy, he was mentally unstable. To show that was - I hope - an act of blindness on the part of the networks.

I hope it was lack of wisdom. I really do, because the alternative is that they knew it would have a legitimizing and validating effect for other unstable people, but the value of sensationalism bringing ratings and viewership was a value higher than social responsibility and safety. I hope it was just stupidity and ignorance and blindness. But I have a feeling it was "let's show it anyway."

And that is not a good sign.

Absurdity. This is my biggest one, personally. I watched these horrible reports about bloodshed and death and tragedy - which were immediately followed up with.... a commercial. Whatever they were. A car ad, a food ad, a vacation ad...insert just about anything.

The contrast was startling. One moment I'm peering into madness, violence, loss and suffering... and then moments later I have some dulcet voice telling me that my life will be so much more fulfilling and worthy if I just have this kind of car, or eat these kind of cheese puffs, or use the makeup, this hair gel.....etc.

Anyone else see the absurdity of this? What's really important? It certainly comes out in an event like Virginia Tech: Love. Relationships. Courage. Health. Safety. Faith. Family. Life.

Pardon me, but who the hell cares about what shaving cream I used this morning? It doesn't matter. Half the stuff that is advertised is successful because people are overfed, under-challenged and bored to death. They've lost sight of what's really of value and buy the lines (carefully crafted) that "this is what you need to be fulfilled, happy, and have sexy partners dangling from your arms."

Never has our self-indulgent consumerism seemed more crass and absurd than in the midst of the news last week. What brand of toilet paper I use doesn't matter. It really doesn't, but we're constantly being pushed to believe that it actually makes a difference in the quality of our lives. What a sham. It's a lie.

So for my part, I'm remembering that...

• We should know about recent events - but we need not make vast speculations about the unknown.
  

• Finding someone to blame only ignores the real problem - the world really is broken.

• Truth is satisfactory - in the order and portions that it comes, and sensationalism is more theater than fact.

• Blindness about our actions is sad, but preferable to knowledgeable disregard for their impact.

• What's really important probably has little to do with what is advertised as being so.

For my part, I'm also praying for everyone at Virginia Tech - including the news-media, who will just move on to the next sensational something.

Nudity on my Xbox

People get naked with me on my Xbox.

I'm baiting you with that - what I mean is that they are being who they really are. And that's what really disturbs me - sort of.

I have joyfully wasted many an hour playing video games online via my Xbox Live account. For any theoretical readers out there who theoretically don't know what that means, here's the super brief explanation. (sorry gamers) Basically, you hook your Xbox up to the Internet, then you can find other people playing the same game and play with/against them. The service that provides this arena is called Xbox Live through bungie.net, and I think I recently read that there are more than six million subscribers.

Anyhow, here's what I find sociologically and psychologically interesting: besides gaming, the online environment gives an arena for people to be who they really are.

I play Halo 2 mostly, and most people have a headset that allows them to speak and hear others speaking. (I can only listen) If you ever go online for any time I think you will be shocked by what you will hear - by what people say to each other.

I'm not talking about good old bad language and cursing. Shoot - you can go hear that in most places. (cable, for instance) What I'm appalled by is the content and intent of their speech. Slanderous, racially charged language. Threats and harassment that is sexual, mocking and vicious. Words bristling with ego and the debasement of others. On and on. Some people open their mouths and utter horrible, horrible things toward other human beings - willful malice and attempts to wound them.

Some might argue that this arena, this environment, provides a venue that encourages that sort of thing. I think this suggestion doesn't go far enough. I think that this online venue doesn't cause anything - it just removes something.

What it removes is the normal sense of public shame. There are no social repercussions for anything that is said there. I could use racial slurs, directed at a specific ethnicity, and there are no consequences. Others can sound off against me but there is no real world feedback, e.g. a punch in the face. If I were to talk to someone standing in front of me like that, I would likely be beat to a senseless pulp. And I should be. Online, people speak with others whom they will never meet, have no existing relationship with and bear no risk of accountability for their behavior.

That's what disturbs me most. When you have complete impunity, what comes out is really you. Social norms and fear of judgment restrict us from saying everything that pops into our minds. "Healthy people" filter out things that are socially inappropriate and may cause them shame. But it seems that when the fear of judgment or getting caught are removed, people will do and say some terrible things. Case in point - my cohorts on Halo 2. (And me. Let's be honest - though I don't slur racially, I've said a few things to opponents that I'm a bit embarrassed about!)

But what we call "healthy people" are just the ones that manage to filter out what they are really thinking, or would really like to say. The thing about people is not that they allow those things to come to the outside - it's that we don't; it's that all of us have those things on the inside, but with some self control, we can keep others from seeing that they're there. We can hide that which is bad. Behave well, though we're not thinking well. Our issue as humans isn't only behavior, it's also motivational and internal.

Jesus called us on it. If you're not familiar, he was talking and teaching about what real "goodness" is. He cites the external behavioral conventions and saying of the day; "you've heard it said...." then states what most people would agree on: Don't murder, don't be unfaithful to your spouse...etc. Then he ups the ante; "but I say..." and he moves us to the internal world - he gets to the (mostly) hidden reality of our hearts.

Read it for yourself. It's in the book of Matthew, chapter 5.

He seems to be concerned not just with how we act, but who we are - for-real, internally, when there is no fear of being caught or reprimanded, when we think we'll get away with it. That, I think is where we need to deal with who we are. That's the starting point; the heart. And that's the point, if we're honest, when we realize that our behavior might point to being a good person, but our inner thought life...we might not be all that good.

This is the starting point - our reality of need, rather than the illusion of goodness. We're all flawed and need some work. Those who seem so well behaved? Does the internal match the external? I'm not sure, and I can't be. It's between them and God.

Meanwhile, I'll hang out with some of the potty-mouths online. Whether they know it or not, they're naked and exposed. They're who they really are. I need to be more that way with God, and then ask for and allow change to happen to the areas that need some work.

When I'm playing with them and hear what they're saying; if it's a good day, I'll pray for them. If it's a really good day, I'll remember to pray for me - I'm not that different, I just hide it better.

My Un-Understood Grief

Well. For catharsis' sake I make this entry.

My Father died just over a month ago.

How should someone respond to that? I sent out lots of emails and phone calls asking for people to pray for him as his condition declined in the hospital. (It was just a hernia repair, which cascaded into the unbelievable.) When it all abruptly and surrealy ended, I informed them of the loss. Now, nearly everyone I know has need to make mention of it.

What should people say to me when they see me? (Like this is all about me - but let's run with this line of thought.) What can they say? Mostly I hear "I'm so sorry" and ask me how I'm doing.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking I don't appreciate their empathetic mode or their desire to know if I'm dealing with the grief "well." I do. The thing is, I think, that we as Americans in the modern era don't have much skill or practice with this type of thing. It's far less common, this personal familiarity with loss than I think it must be in most other parts of the world. We're awkward about it. I'm awkward about it.

My Father has died. I have, obviously, never before comprehended the full weight of that. I probably don't now, nor will for some time. When people ask me "How are you doing John?" I get irritated - not for the reason you think. More because I'm not sure how to respond.

How am I doing? At present I think I could answer that one of two ways.

Option One: I could have a conversation with them about the fullness of my Father's life, how he reared me, his moments of weakness and withdrawl, our level of intimacy, what strength he passed to me, what failings I have had to overcome, and the new strangeness of this reality; that your parents (if all goes relatively well) are the ONLY constant - the singular relationship in which you find yourself engaged since before you are able to remember. They always have been - like some relational mountain. There is no other such relationship. I could try to have a conversation - when people ask - about the simultaneous absurdities of being no where close to full realization of what this loss means and trying to heal. That conversation, I think, would do me a lot of good. But I haven't had it yet. (not even with myself)

Option Two: I could say "I'm doing fine."


So, what's irritating about this is that I can't really give either answer. The first option isn't an option, because in nearly every instance that I see my friends and co-workers, the context, the timing and the personal investment are probably all not up to muster for a full answer. Americans really just want to hear a one minute update. Really. With the exception of a few close friends, that's what I want when I have conversations too.

Option Two I can't go with. While people do want a synopsis, there should be some genuine element to it. Plus, the dialogue is "How are you doing with your Dad's death?" and I answer "I'm doing just fine." I'm doing a pretty big disservice to myself (that would be a bit more than an oversimplification) and to the memory and impact of my Dad. I'm fine with my Dad's death? Right. Now they'll think I'm in some kind of denial, or we had some kind of estrangement.

What I need is a 2 minute answer. But there is none. So, I usually wind up saying a few cliches and trying to give some information that is a little bit vulnerable and sincere but doesn't required a major time commitment or beg further pursuit.

Is that unhealthy? Shallow?

I'd really rather not talk about it much if I can't probe it deeply. I hate it right now that it most often comes up in small talk. I say a few "yeah it's hard"s then transition into talking about my Mom, who has more to adjust to. (Which is so true, but in part might be a dodge.)

The my most appreciated responses thus far? Honestly? Those who've said something like "John, we will continue to pray for you." I hope that's true. That's really what I want. They have cared. They know I will somehow need more support and prayer. They don't presume I could tell them what I'll need and they don't ask me to encapsulate the next few years of processing and self-discovery right then in a sound bite. They also recognize that if I need Option One with someone, I can probably ask someone who is willing to wade through it all with me.

I do need to wade through sometime soon - with someone who knows. Because the fact of the matter is - you comprehend that this type of loss will be far reaching and depth shaking when that day inevitably comes, but no amount of articulate explanation and theoretical empathy can match a knowing "Me too... Me too."

I miss my Dad.

Whew - Fall!

Well - it's been quite some time since I've written anything down.

It's not that things haven't been bouncing around my head, or that I haven't had any desire to get some of those thoughts (and mis-thoughts) down, I've just not really had time.

I just finished what was my final semester working on a college campus. I'm transitioning to an office-type job within the same organization. I'm looking forward to some things that will be different, in particular having a role that will allow for some more creativity. Though, I will miss the personal contact and interactions with students. I will miss that quite a bit, which does cause some sadness.

It's been a bitter-sweet thing - this leaving behind of one world for another. Resistance or hesitancy about transition seems natural, although we tend to think that we should feel otherwise. After all, even if you know something good is coming, we tend to not want to let go of what is already familiar and experienced. At the other end of transition, something great lurks. (this is a chief hope, isn't it?) But it's unattained. Smokey.

Smoke is real. I can see it, I can smell it, I can even interact with it. But it's hard to grasp. That's what promises of the future feel a little bit like to me. Perhaps it's my pessimistic bent, but I'm a not-so-interested-in-the-two-in-the-bush type.

Anyhow - I let go of this 10 year interaction with students a little hesitantly. It's been a busy fall, and it's a little hard to say good bye to what is familiar and loved. Especially when it's people. But, I have a feeling that I'll enjoy this next stage of life - until I have to slowly, cautiously be coaxed to open my hand, relinquish control and move to the next thing. I should be more open handed I think.

After all - in a campus environment you have to get used to letting go. Students only stay for 4 or 5 years and then we part company. I suppose then that the thing I'm most sad about it giving up the view of that parade. It's been such a joy to watch students come, grow, learn, change, and head out. It's been a good seat, with a great view. It will go on - students will come to college, learn who they are, who God is and catch a vision of their future - smokey as it may be - and depart for it. I'll just have to enjoy that from a distance.

I wonder what things I will fall in love with next? The thought that love, with all its entanglements and surprises, is transferable and lasting is really the thing that makes the future tenable.