Christmas with the family! I always enjoy being with my family. I do love all my family and they are each great in their own way.
My dad likes to keep the dish network on the church propaganda channel. Every day is like sunday indeed. For God's sake can we turn off the church and eat? It really is just like family-friendly fascism. I am all propaganda'd out. I never want to hear another church Elder talk about how faith can move mountains as if Mount Saint Helens is 1/2 gone because some Priest was "practicing".
The promises church speakers make are like the fake presents that are still under the tree in the museum on December 27th. No one is racing to open them because they know there is actually nothing of value inside. It is just all show, glitz, and mood setting.
I sometimes postulate that if investing tangible time and value into something that is no more provable than a fantasy brings someone to occasional idealistic selflessness, there may still be some good in it. I know that the religious systems to which people subscribe are not necessary for human beings to improve their character or care for one-another. They may actually be inefficient obstacles that, on balance, create more suffering and misery than they inspire goodness.
I listened to some of the " Slayer, Christ Illusion" album a week or so ago. It won a grammy, so it must be worth something. The music is solid and of a high quality in the genre. Much of what they make is for their own pleasure, though they do suggest that religion is a mass delusion.
I think if people want to hope for something that could be and can't be disproved, that is their own business. Faith, being the human hopes and dreams that may yet be, is at the core of human existence. We are reality generating machines and we can bring about many of of our dreams which have yet to exist.
Though, when one loses contact with reason and begins to state as reality things for which one merely hopes, there is some confusing self-delusion going on. One must always be prepared for the possibility that one's assumptions could be superceded by better science, knowledge and understanding.
Christmas also brought some good times touring through Seattle. Fresh fish, Coffee, Espresso, Lattes, Capucino and ...did I mention the Coffee? I have visited the Museum of Flight, Pacific Science Center, Puget Sound and the family all went to the holiday ball-breaker, "The Nutcracker".
I like hearing Tchaikovsky. This ballet, which I had never seen before, has been around long enough that it has popularized its music as Christmas music. It is an enjoyable ballet with enough material to give different companies some room for interpretation. I can still feel some old notions of royal social order in the dance.
The dances with a man and a woman seem to show the man turning tipping, arranging and manipulating the woman whose overwhelming power is to keep his interest focused only and continually on her and to captivate him at her side through it all. It is the love détente, each feeling in control in the manner he or she prefers.
Ballet seems to have a medieval quality of nearly worshipping women as precious objects on a pedastal, though these dancers really are admirable athletes. The men are secondary on this stage, though they seem to be able to do the flutter jumps well, the lightness of which belies the strength they need to perform them. Yet, nothing holds a candle to the women on point. What a wonder to behold. It makes one admire Russian culture.
There is my Christmas update, enjoy.
=sumwun
Friday, December 29, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
All that Swearing in Congress
Democrat Keith Ellison will soon be sworn in as the first Muslim United States Congressman. In his private swearing-in ceremony he has chosen to put his hand on a Koran and not on a Bible.
There seems to actually be an uproar about this, though I think there should not be. This is America, we have religious freedom. The swearing-in symbolism is not fixed in stone and really means that you are putting your name upon all that is holy to you that you will perform your duties including upholding our Constitution.
I think atheists should likewise be free to swear in with a symbolic gesture of their choosing. Personally I would not take offense to swearing on a Bible because I am sure it would send the right message to my constituents, plus it is an old document that represents moral ideals, even if its actual messages are antiquated.
Of course one should have the right to forego religious exercizes if he or she sees fit.
I bet Stephen Colbert would swear in on a literal stack of Bibles just so he could claim later that he had sworn in on a stack of Bibles for comic exaggeration that was ironically true.
If the congressman elect, Mr. Ellison, wants to symbolize his swearing in using his own religious preference then God Bless American religious freedom.
We can be grateful to the wisdom and values of those, many christians among them, who founded our country. Yet, this is not a Christian nation by legal definition, only by the faith choices of many of its citizens.
Why not mention Flag burning here as well.
Americans ought to be able to burn their own flag in protest. This seemed to happen at least once in the 60's protest era. I am sure it was driven by psychadelic drugs right?
I find burning the flag to be offensive. It is a symbol of our nation, our beautiful banner imbued with meaning, sacrifice, history and honor. Although, if you aren't committing arson, breaking fire codes or burning someone else's property, I think flag burning should never be outlawed. That would be contrary to the spirit and nature of our country.
I probably wouldn't even burn a foreign flag, though I think America is a free country and should not repressively ban speech even if it offends me (and perhaps many others).
And finally, you know, I just might swear in on a Carl Sagan book. I mean when I am inevitably up for swearing in as a congressman.
=sw
There seems to actually be an uproar about this, though I think there should not be. This is America, we have religious freedom. The swearing-in symbolism is not fixed in stone and really means that you are putting your name upon all that is holy to you that you will perform your duties including upholding our Constitution.
I think atheists should likewise be free to swear in with a symbolic gesture of their choosing. Personally I would not take offense to swearing on a Bible because I am sure it would send the right message to my constituents, plus it is an old document that represents moral ideals, even if its actual messages are antiquated.
Of course one should have the right to forego religious exercizes if he or she sees fit.
I bet Stephen Colbert would swear in on a literal stack of Bibles just so he could claim later that he had sworn in on a stack of Bibles for comic exaggeration that was ironically true.
If the congressman elect, Mr. Ellison, wants to symbolize his swearing in using his own religious preference then God Bless American religious freedom.
We can be grateful to the wisdom and values of those, many christians among them, who founded our country. Yet, this is not a Christian nation by legal definition, only by the faith choices of many of its citizens.
Why not mention Flag burning here as well.
Americans ought to be able to burn their own flag in protest. This seemed to happen at least once in the 60's protest era. I am sure it was driven by psychadelic drugs right?
I find burning the flag to be offensive. It is a symbol of our nation, our beautiful banner imbued with meaning, sacrifice, history and honor. Although, if you aren't committing arson, breaking fire codes or burning someone else's property, I think flag burning should never be outlawed. That would be contrary to the spirit and nature of our country.
I probably wouldn't even burn a foreign flag, though I think America is a free country and should not repressively ban speech even if it offends me (and perhaps many others).
And finally, you know, I just might swear in on a Carl Sagan book. I mean when I am inevitably up for swearing in as a congressman.
=sw
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The Old T-Bone
A repressed upbringing can lead to some amazing innovations. In Utah, at BYU sometimes girls will direct vodka into their bodies in a manner that could never be called "Drinking". I have named it "Cooch Bonging". You can use your imagination, but it apparently gets these college girls intoxicated while allowing the easy and honest rationalization "I did not drink anything".
This reminds me of a Jewish neighbor who asks you to push the elevator button on the sabbath...because initiating the use a device on the sabbath is entirely wrong while benefitting from another's use of a device is just far enough into the grey area to rationalize.
Though religious people often look down upon rationalization they are often the keepers of the flame and the main innovators in this sphere.
When I was much younger, I felt so much guilt about sex. Like many religious people, I simply wanted both approval and acceptance of my society AND the fulfillment of all my desires. Thus we innovate. Some of the things religious people do to rationalize their way out of their own beliefs are really creative and fun.
Remember making out? It used to be so wonderful when it was all you had. It seems that once we have gone all the way, we gloss over the journey far too readily. Making out can be a fun destination or at least a very scenic route on the map-o-love.
Now to "boning the T". This is just one of the things I used to do to avoid the cognitive definition of having sex with my first real girlfriend, you know, so I could honestly tell my church leaders "I have never" this or that and not "technically" be lying.
I wish to address this topic in an entirely crude way. I mean as to the level of detail. Like a caveman would construct a "crude hammer"...not a "nasty hammer". Ah...the "nasty hammer", that's a blog topic for another day....ANYWAY...I will now begin speaking in crudely formed symbolism.
Imagine a view of girlfriend-heaven from just south of heaven, round about the kneecaps, looking north. This is a 22 year old I am speaking of, just so you know. I was a late bloomer ok? I was 24! Wait I think that's too much info....so yes, again...the view looking up into heaven...symbolized by looking along a street in Brugge Belgium.
Ok, this is a rather wide gate, though it is symbolically about right...thighs on the left and right...the shingled roofing (symbolizes a girl-garden) and the statue of St. Taurus (not his real name) in the middle.
Now here is the T...
This T would be imprinted say on a bed...or in this case a street and symbolizes the space at the top of the lady-thighs where they open ever so gently left and right only to stop at the wall at the top. With me? So if you are a good old-fashioned gentleman wanting to let's say "drive your bus" into the gate, you might do so in this manner and direction:
It's a big gate here, so we needed to compensate by using a rather large bus. Let's call it "the express to coitusville".
Now pretend you were raised in an inhumanly uptight religion, and all your natural desires made you an enemy to God and destined for hellfire. Now suppose that you were still attending regularly and driving your bus through the gate was the worst possible choice you could make because it would ruin your life and get you kicked out of your social circles, church and maybe even your school. Now you would need to innovate.
Some "comers" to the game, like Pete opted for driving up...this is pretty good because it is fun, and it gives some tire track action to St. Taurus, (which is important) and unloads the passengers up on the roof instead of down in Cervical Cafe where they might do something evil like order a latte or inseminate something. Here is an example of Pete's method, 3d bus action thanks to Google Sketch-up...
Another perfectly viable option would be to drive your bus down from the top, sure you have to make a pretty firm bend-back to get it to go that way, though it is equally as rewarding and fun and leaves the passengers on the bed-rock. Allow me to depict this technique using my huge and heavy bus:
As you can see, the Front or "Tip" of the bus is hanging just above the street, showing us the underside of the "vehicle". The motion of the bus is pointing directly into the T as can be seen in the final frame below:
There you have it friends, Boning the T.
I recommend everyone spice up their bus trips from the regularly scheduled route and explore some of the incredible innovations brought about by a collision of healthy natural desires and whacky religiously repressed thinking. I think you'll find that recalling the days where you were using your limits directs you to some new found fun.
Some people do these funny things out of ignorance, like Louis XVI, until they figure it out or it is explained to them. Others know what they are doing so as not to do what they think they shouldn't.
To "fill you in" on the story, boning the T only lasted a few weeks until, with a sweet charming "wanna put it..." I did. I have been enjoying the excellent cervix at the coitus cafe ever since.
=sw
This reminds me of a Jewish neighbor who asks you to push the elevator button on the sabbath...because initiating the use a device on the sabbath is entirely wrong while benefitting from another's use of a device is just far enough into the grey area to rationalize.
Though religious people often look down upon rationalization they are often the keepers of the flame and the main innovators in this sphere.
When I was much younger, I felt so much guilt about sex. Like many religious people, I simply wanted both approval and acceptance of my society AND the fulfillment of all my desires. Thus we innovate. Some of the things religious people do to rationalize their way out of their own beliefs are really creative and fun.
Remember making out? It used to be so wonderful when it was all you had. It seems that once we have gone all the way, we gloss over the journey far too readily. Making out can be a fun destination or at least a very scenic route on the map-o-love.
Now to "boning the T". This is just one of the things I used to do to avoid the cognitive definition of having sex with my first real girlfriend, you know, so I could honestly tell my church leaders "I have never" this or that and not "technically" be lying.
I wish to address this topic in an entirely crude way. I mean as to the level of detail. Like a caveman would construct a "crude hammer"...not a "nasty hammer". Ah...the "nasty hammer", that's a blog topic for another day....ANYWAY...I will now begin speaking in crudely formed symbolism.
Imagine a view of girlfriend-heaven from just south of heaven, round about the kneecaps, looking north. This is a 22 year old I am speaking of, just so you know. I was a late bloomer ok? I was 24! Wait I think that's too much info....so yes, again...the view looking up into heaven...symbolized by looking along a street in Brugge Belgium.
Ok, this is a rather wide gate, though it is symbolically about right...thighs on the left and right...the shingled roofing (symbolizes a girl-garden) and the statue of St. Taurus (not his real name) in the middle.
Now here is the T...
This T would be imprinted say on a bed...or in this case a street and symbolizes the space at the top of the lady-thighs where they open ever so gently left and right only to stop at the wall at the top. With me? So if you are a good old-fashioned gentleman wanting to let's say "drive your bus" into the gate, you might do so in this manner and direction:
It's a big gate here, so we needed to compensate by using a rather large bus. Let's call it "the express to coitusville".
Now pretend you were raised in an inhumanly uptight religion, and all your natural desires made you an enemy to God and destined for hellfire. Now suppose that you were still attending regularly and driving your bus through the gate was the worst possible choice you could make because it would ruin your life and get you kicked out of your social circles, church and maybe even your school. Now you would need to innovate.
Some "comers" to the game, like Pete opted for driving up...this is pretty good because it is fun, and it gives some tire track action to St. Taurus, (which is important) and unloads the passengers up on the roof instead of down in Cervical Cafe where they might do something evil like order a latte or inseminate something. Here is an example of Pete's method, 3d bus action thanks to Google Sketch-up...
Another perfectly viable option would be to drive your bus down from the top, sure you have to make a pretty firm bend-back to get it to go that way, though it is equally as rewarding and fun and leaves the passengers on the bed-rock. Allow me to depict this technique using my huge and heavy bus:
As you can see, the Front or "Tip" of the bus is hanging just above the street, showing us the underside of the "vehicle". The motion of the bus is pointing directly into the T as can be seen in the final frame below:
There you have it friends, Boning the T.
I recommend everyone spice up their bus trips from the regularly scheduled route and explore some of the incredible innovations brought about by a collision of healthy natural desires and whacky religiously repressed thinking. I think you'll find that recalling the days where you were using your limits directs you to some new found fun.
Some people do these funny things out of ignorance, like Louis XVI, until they figure it out or it is explained to them. Others know what they are doing so as not to do what they think they shouldn't.
To "fill you in" on the story, boning the T only lasted a few weeks until, with a sweet charming "wanna put it..." I did. I have been enjoying the excellent cervix at the coitus cafe ever since.
=sw
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Scarves, Symbolism and History
I read an outline of islamic women's head coverings on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm
I remember my grandma used to wear a large folded silk square on her head. She was a christian woman and probably wore it out of the fashion of her time. I have usually associated women's head coverings with older women or stories of ancient women.
I think the tradition of wearing head coverings is much older than islam. Note this Bible verse from the New Testament which predates the founding of islam by hundreds of years:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head,since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (1 Corinthians 11:3-10)"
I don't believe in any of that. I think any human can pray or not pray to whatever they will or nothing at all, with a head covered or not. I quote it to point out that the head covering as a muslim political symbol is a co-opted anachronism.
I think head coverings can be attractive on women. I like the way women use dress to enhance their beauty. In the case of a muslim head covering, it can be a very positive statement of faith, virtue and identity that can also be beautiful.
I am not happy with the idea that the head covering is imposed on any woman rather than chosen. At certain lengths, it becomes an insult to women's freedom, individuality and dignity. I also think that some levels of coverage create anti-social situations and security concerns.
A Turkish or French muslim who wears the hijab as a personal religious choice is a bright spot in a free society to me. Yet at the extremes of the Taliban enforcing repressive systems upon women, I believe any symbol thereof becomes incendiary.
The Naqib and the Burkah seem to me to reduce the status and human dignity of women and are not socially viable in the west, even though they are often tolerated. I think the human face is important to identifying who it is you are dealing with and what their intentions are. Also, perhaps unfortunately, these "over everything" coverings have been used by some muslim women to commit suicide bombings in some areas of the world. Sometimes these coverings are used to smuggle lawbreaking men away from justice, in disguise.
Headscarves are banned in French schools. This seems to be what they have chosen to do to reduce the likelihood of religious tension among classmates. Though, to someone who desires to follow the counsel of her faith, it may be a big sacrifice. Perhaps something akin to asking a catholic girl to go to school without a shirt on.
In much the same way that a child can be sent home for wearing the wrong t-shirt to school, I believe that in some situations it is appropriate to curtail symbolic dress in schools. This is especially important if what one person is proud to wear causes enormous tension in classmates.
In another way, the headscarf can be a symbol of anti-semitism. When many muslim societies wrongly deny the holocaust, muslim dress styles tend to symbolize anti-jewish feelings to some people.
On the other side of this debate, there is a lot of rhetoric in France speaking of muslim immigrants who won't integrate or change their faith. The immigrants are accused of being the cause of many problems in France like crime or economic issues. All of this is hauntingly familiar from the rhetoric used in Germany in the 1930's against jews.
I think of politicians in their suits, gang members and their representative attire, mini-skirts on Wall Street or hemp sweaters in San Francisco and I realize the cloth-speech is all around us.
In a truly free society we should all be able to wear what we chose. Though symbolism seems to permeate clothing like a language of its own.
=sw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm
I remember my grandma used to wear a large folded silk square on her head. She was a christian woman and probably wore it out of the fashion of her time. I have usually associated women's head coverings with older women or stories of ancient women.
I think the tradition of wearing head coverings is much older than islam. Note this Bible verse from the New Testament which predates the founding of islam by hundreds of years:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head,since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (1 Corinthians 11:3-10)"
I don't believe in any of that. I think any human can pray or not pray to whatever they will or nothing at all, with a head covered or not. I quote it to point out that the head covering as a muslim political symbol is a co-opted anachronism.
I think head coverings can be attractive on women. I like the way women use dress to enhance their beauty. In the case of a muslim head covering, it can be a very positive statement of faith, virtue and identity that can also be beautiful.
I am not happy with the idea that the head covering is imposed on any woman rather than chosen. At certain lengths, it becomes an insult to women's freedom, individuality and dignity. I also think that some levels of coverage create anti-social situations and security concerns.
A Turkish or French muslim who wears the hijab as a personal religious choice is a bright spot in a free society to me. Yet at the extremes of the Taliban enforcing repressive systems upon women, I believe any symbol thereof becomes incendiary.
The Naqib and the Burkah seem to me to reduce the status and human dignity of women and are not socially viable in the west, even though they are often tolerated. I think the human face is important to identifying who it is you are dealing with and what their intentions are. Also, perhaps unfortunately, these "over everything" coverings have been used by some muslim women to commit suicide bombings in some areas of the world. Sometimes these coverings are used to smuggle lawbreaking men away from justice, in disguise.
Headscarves are banned in French schools. This seems to be what they have chosen to do to reduce the likelihood of religious tension among classmates. Though, to someone who desires to follow the counsel of her faith, it may be a big sacrifice. Perhaps something akin to asking a catholic girl to go to school without a shirt on.
In much the same way that a child can be sent home for wearing the wrong t-shirt to school, I believe that in some situations it is appropriate to curtail symbolic dress in schools. This is especially important if what one person is proud to wear causes enormous tension in classmates.
In another way, the headscarf can be a symbol of anti-semitism. When many muslim societies wrongly deny the holocaust, muslim dress styles tend to symbolize anti-jewish feelings to some people.
On the other side of this debate, there is a lot of rhetoric in France speaking of muslim immigrants who won't integrate or change their faith. The immigrants are accused of being the cause of many problems in France like crime or economic issues. All of this is hauntingly familiar from the rhetoric used in Germany in the 1930's against jews.
I think of politicians in their suits, gang members and their representative attire, mini-skirts on Wall Street or hemp sweaters in San Francisco and I realize the cloth-speech is all around us.
In a truly free society we should all be able to wear what we chose. Though symbolism seems to permeate clothing like a language of its own.
=sw
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Gender and Communication
I heard a couple of friends of mine who are women in their twenties talking about their boyfriends not being "trained yet". This whole concept may be intended to be quaint but I find it basically offensive in principal. As if men were animals destined to servitude.
Maybe I just shouldn't hang out with any woman in her "I am finding myself, so I hate men" days.
I understand some women may at times feel the need to iterate claims to self worth into their lover's minds. Women don't want injustices imposed upon them assumptively as if that were the natural order of things.
I am a Man. I know we were all women until that awesome gene was activated with its significant cascading effects. I sometimes feel I need to remind women that men are human beings with blood coursing through their veins. Our bodies have an organ that is analogous to each and every organ in the female body even though physically men and women are gloriously different in some naturally intriguing ways.
I see so much ignorance and poorly formed communication between men and women. It is as if each exchange is 90% presumption, 9% what mom or dad taught and about 1% real understanding. Sometimes when I speak with a woman I get a sense that she thinks she "knows men" and that I am just the same in every way and that nothing I say matters and won't change her preconceived notions. I don't doubt this is like the experience some woman may have communicating with men.
Women often ask: "What are you thinking?" My male answer is "Well a lot." With some things, I can't put any of it into words either because it is so abstract, sublime or internalized. Maybe it's my narrow corpus callosum that keeps me from putting the verbs with the notions. At least it cannot be done quickly. Maybe I just don't feel the need to explain my thoughts on command to anyone or maybe I am just relaxing and trying not to form thoughts that can be shared. Maybe I am thinking things I think you will not find acceptable and because I want to keep you in my life I know not to talk about all my notions. Maybe I don't function like your girlfriend's do so I don't have a bonding token at hand at every or any moment.
The mean little misogynist in me sometimes has contempt for women's packaged emotions. They seem cliché to me sometimes because they are so readily verbalized like little products on a shelf. I am empathetic and sensible enough to abstract myself from my subjectivity long enough to see that women likewise find my approach to emotions lacking because of how not-readily-sharable it is.
What should not be disputed is that we are all human beings and all have thoughts and feelings, all have a heart and soul, and morally equal worth.
As for women "training" their men, For God's sake just treat me with the same respect you feel you deserve and you can expect me to treat you with that same respect.
=sw
Maybe I just shouldn't hang out with any woman in her "I am finding myself, so I hate men" days.
I understand some women may at times feel the need to iterate claims to self worth into their lover's minds. Women don't want injustices imposed upon them assumptively as if that were the natural order of things.
I am a Man. I know we were all women until that awesome gene was activated with its significant cascading effects. I sometimes feel I need to remind women that men are human beings with blood coursing through their veins. Our bodies have an organ that is analogous to each and every organ in the female body even though physically men and women are gloriously different in some naturally intriguing ways.
I see so much ignorance and poorly formed communication between men and women. It is as if each exchange is 90% presumption, 9% what mom or dad taught and about 1% real understanding. Sometimes when I speak with a woman I get a sense that she thinks she "knows men" and that I am just the same in every way and that nothing I say matters and won't change her preconceived notions. I don't doubt this is like the experience some woman may have communicating with men.
Women often ask: "What are you thinking?" My male answer is "Well a lot." With some things, I can't put any of it into words either because it is so abstract, sublime or internalized. Maybe it's my narrow corpus callosum that keeps me from putting the verbs with the notions. At least it cannot be done quickly. Maybe I just don't feel the need to explain my thoughts on command to anyone or maybe I am just relaxing and trying not to form thoughts that can be shared. Maybe I am thinking things I think you will not find acceptable and because I want to keep you in my life I know not to talk about all my notions. Maybe I don't function like your girlfriend's do so I don't have a bonding token at hand at every or any moment.
The mean little misogynist in me sometimes has contempt for women's packaged emotions. They seem cliché to me sometimes because they are so readily verbalized like little products on a shelf. I am empathetic and sensible enough to abstract myself from my subjectivity long enough to see that women likewise find my approach to emotions lacking because of how not-readily-sharable it is.
What should not be disputed is that we are all human beings and all have thoughts and feelings, all have a heart and soul, and morally equal worth.
As for women "training" their men, For God's sake just treat me with the same respect you feel you deserve and you can expect me to treat you with that same respect.
=sw
Friday, November 10, 2006
Notwithstanding
I am Canadian born so I got a dose of the sarcasm and humor that anglo-saxon roots bring with it. I am ok with joking around. My self confidence stands up under all kinds of teasing. Some people know how to pull off a good dig and can take them back in stride. Though, I am the kind of person who feels there is a line.
There is a kind of immature sarcastic insult that can be endured, tolerated but is eventually nothing more than haranguing or harassment.
When you know you are respected and accepted by your peers, jokes and sarcasm have a context that is truly not painful or insulting. I think as a (one time) Canadian I have a wonderful personality feature called openness. There is a friendly park surrounding my soul, with few to no barriers. One could say there is a symbolic boundary over which people can easily step into my friend-space and interact with my world. Sometimes people misbehave and have to be escorted to the edge of my friend-space and banned or sent on a break. Mostly, though, I am patient, tolerant and accepting. I sincerely desire to know the features of another persons personality and life and to see the good in them. I usually try to have enough respect and decency for others not to attack them personally or place insulting hurtful labels on them.
My goat can be easy to get, it's right over a short wall on my property. I expect people to respect me and what is mine as I offer the same to them. I honestly don't know the proper way to deal with people who don't live by the same social contract. I just want to be treated properly and I agree to do the same for others.
I heard about the Canadian (NATO) forces taking over in Afghanistan. Though soldiers, they intuitively wanted to show restraint against their fellow men. As one of the Canadian soldiers said when interviewed about the first encounter, "We got our noses bloodied". So they recommitted themselves to go after the Taliban tribal fighters and terrorists with full force. They should have known, but at the same time, these are the kind of people they are. Like other Canadians before them in the World Wars, they will get the job done and be on the victorious side.
Occasionally my inherent benefit of the doubt is offered to the wrong kind of person. Perhaps their insecurities clash with my own or they regard my openness as weakness. Maybe they are attracted to the same women, you know, like we are Moose or Elephant Seals in competition.
It doesn't come naturally to me to use a credible threat or even an implied one to deter someone from annoying me. If I am to the point of saying I'll do something, I just might. So I don't go there. All I can do is show my displeasure, state my disagreement. Sometimes that makes it seem like I can no longer be joked with, teased or insulted. That's unfortunate. It's all about the spirit of the thing. It is easy to pick out other's vulnerabilities or fears and play on them. It's just not nice.
I think some of the fittest humans evolved being nice. I think it takes highly adapted intelligence to make love not war.
I don't want a society where violence is the path to respect. That doesn't seem to be in harmony with the rule of law or any other high minded human ideal.
Now, when I speak of haranguing I don't just mean..."Hey Jerk". I am talking about things that amount to possible life-ruining besmirchment of character that in the first place were never true. When these kinds of labels are used even for humor, it can anger and dismay the target of these, greatly reducing happiness. It becomes an honor issue. Just desserts must be eaten, but dishonoring someone makes it gauntlet dropping time.
I still am too nice and Canadian to really stand up in the right way. Another powerful thing to do would be not to dignify insults with a response. I have yet to be secure enough and of a magnitude of character where I can get that done properly either. So I settle with getting pissed off and using a few stern words. That alienates people...I can feel it happen.
There are people around me that I know have heard how annoyed I can get when I was unfairly prodded and insulted. I am sure that they never hear a balanced view. It is clear I cannot interact with some people in the same way I once could, because they heard my character portrayed by the very person who got on my nerves.
I am a grown man and I feel like I am still in junior high.
My achilles heel is that I see bullies as people who are just as insecure and lonely as I sometimes feel. I can't dehumanize them. So I muddle on not handling them exactly right. Oh well, all I can do is be me and hope that others will get to know me instead of just stopping at the insults, labels and the outburst.
=sw
There is a kind of immature sarcastic insult that can be endured, tolerated but is eventually nothing more than haranguing or harassment.
When you know you are respected and accepted by your peers, jokes and sarcasm have a context that is truly not painful or insulting. I think as a (one time) Canadian I have a wonderful personality feature called openness. There is a friendly park surrounding my soul, with few to no barriers. One could say there is a symbolic boundary over which people can easily step into my friend-space and interact with my world. Sometimes people misbehave and have to be escorted to the edge of my friend-space and banned or sent on a break. Mostly, though, I am patient, tolerant and accepting. I sincerely desire to know the features of another persons personality and life and to see the good in them. I usually try to have enough respect and decency for others not to attack them personally or place insulting hurtful labels on them.
My goat can be easy to get, it's right over a short wall on my property. I expect people to respect me and what is mine as I offer the same to them. I honestly don't know the proper way to deal with people who don't live by the same social contract. I just want to be treated properly and I agree to do the same for others.
I heard about the Canadian (NATO) forces taking over in Afghanistan. Though soldiers, they intuitively wanted to show restraint against their fellow men. As one of the Canadian soldiers said when interviewed about the first encounter, "We got our noses bloodied". So they recommitted themselves to go after the Taliban tribal fighters and terrorists with full force. They should have known, but at the same time, these are the kind of people they are. Like other Canadians before them in the World Wars, they will get the job done and be on the victorious side.
Occasionally my inherent benefit of the doubt is offered to the wrong kind of person. Perhaps their insecurities clash with my own or they regard my openness as weakness. Maybe they are attracted to the same women, you know, like we are Moose or Elephant Seals in competition.
It doesn't come naturally to me to use a credible threat or even an implied one to deter someone from annoying me. If I am to the point of saying I'll do something, I just might. So I don't go there. All I can do is show my displeasure, state my disagreement. Sometimes that makes it seem like I can no longer be joked with, teased or insulted. That's unfortunate. It's all about the spirit of the thing. It is easy to pick out other's vulnerabilities or fears and play on them. It's just not nice.
I think some of the fittest humans evolved being nice. I think it takes highly adapted intelligence to make love not war.
I don't want a society where violence is the path to respect. That doesn't seem to be in harmony with the rule of law or any other high minded human ideal.
Now, when I speak of haranguing I don't just mean..."Hey Jerk". I am talking about things that amount to possible life-ruining besmirchment of character that in the first place were never true. When these kinds of labels are used even for humor, it can anger and dismay the target of these, greatly reducing happiness. It becomes an honor issue. Just desserts must be eaten, but dishonoring someone makes it gauntlet dropping time.
I still am too nice and Canadian to really stand up in the right way. Another powerful thing to do would be not to dignify insults with a response. I have yet to be secure enough and of a magnitude of character where I can get that done properly either. So I settle with getting pissed off and using a few stern words. That alienates people...I can feel it happen.
There are people around me that I know have heard how annoyed I can get when I was unfairly prodded and insulted. I am sure that they never hear a balanced view. It is clear I cannot interact with some people in the same way I once could, because they heard my character portrayed by the very person who got on my nerves.
I am a grown man and I feel like I am still in junior high.
My achilles heel is that I see bullies as people who are just as insecure and lonely as I sometimes feel. I can't dehumanize them. So I muddle on not handling them exactly right. Oh well, all I can do is be me and hope that others will get to know me instead of just stopping at the insults, labels and the outburst.
=sw
Friday, October 06, 2006
Violence
I saw the new movie "The Departed". Ofcourse there were going to be killings in a movie called "The Departed". This is a well made engaging and entertaining film. Something happened during the movie where a murder gets a laugh. A big slapstick roar from the audience. I am not looking down on this, I laughed right out loud too. It was just....a reminder of what can get a laugh in our culture. I have experienced this before, a scene where a violent act draws laughter or cheering. I enjoy suspending my disbelief and buying into a story and when an archetype meets some "comeupin's", it is satisfying.
I think people can consume entertainment and not be changed fundamentally by it. Maybe some people who are vulnerable to anti-social behavior truly are influenced in part by the media they consume. Maybe we are all influenced generally by the culture we live in.
The paths crossed for me today. The violence of war...all the American soldiers, dying with honor, faithful to their pledge to country, all the other war dead, counted this week, in so many high numbers, the school shootings running rampant, the senseless acts of terror and kidnapping and the good old pop-a-cap to the head bloodsplatter joke. It just felt strange to laugh at it. Like the minute hand just finally crossed into a new hour and I saw it all for once.
Like Eddie Izzard says, what's next is vomitariums and orgies? I guess our civilization can't fall this weekend, I have to finish up some work. So no drinking for me. It will be an orgy (of programming) to remember. An orgy of diet soda? Would you accept an "origami"?
Please do not ask me to write vomitaria...there is nothing grammatically correct about purging, besides I speak English, not Latin.
I think people can consume entertainment and not be changed fundamentally by it. Maybe some people who are vulnerable to anti-social behavior truly are influenced in part by the media they consume. Maybe we are all influenced generally by the culture we live in.
The paths crossed for me today. The violence of war...all the American soldiers, dying with honor, faithful to their pledge to country, all the other war dead, counted this week, in so many high numbers, the school shootings running rampant, the senseless acts of terror and kidnapping and the good old pop-a-cap to the head bloodsplatter joke. It just felt strange to laugh at it. Like the minute hand just finally crossed into a new hour and I saw it all for once.
Like Eddie Izzard says, what's next is vomitariums and orgies? I guess our civilization can't fall this weekend, I have to finish up some work. So no drinking for me. It will be an orgy (of programming) to remember. An orgy of diet soda? Would you accept an "origami"?
Please do not ask me to write vomitaria...there is nothing grammatically correct about purging, besides I speak English, not Latin.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
W3C
As I am involved in Web development a lot I have some knowledge and opinions about validation.
First, validation is logically irrational. What one does is to compare a coded page that has to run in a piece of imperfect software called a Web browser to a library of standards that may or may not be supported expressly or correctly by the software people will use to access the Web site.
The W3C is a great idea and I am all for standards but it is an organization that has no authority to impose its will upon software makers. Browser makers with ideals may well endeavor to comply, while still supporting other technologies, either too new or not within the radar screen of the almost arbitrary standards of the W3C.
Microsoft is a big player in this area and will not soon even claim to endeavor to support the W3C recommendations fully or as defined. So, using a validator is about as sensible as using an Oxford English dictionary to correct New York City mobsters on their use of English. The Oxford dictionary is a fine standard to which one can aspire in English writing and usage, though it has no authority at all to impose its will on the streets of New York City.
A site can pass a validator with flying colors and still look broken or poorly rendered when viewed by a person using a browser. Unless, of course, you refrain from using a large portion of the technology available to you and design a look-alike template with lovely little blocks, borders and padding. You will then be YAWN compliant and meet the BAH (boring as hell) standards.
The W3C misuses the word "deprecated". In a world where the company that sets the standards actually makes the product, like Sun Microsystems and Java, the word "deprecated" carries some real weight and authority. It actually means that in either the next version or a near future version of their system, some things will actually cease to work and be removed. This is never the case with W3C recommendations. They have no power to deprecate anything. While no developer worth his salt uses a "center" tag or a "font" tag anymore, these tags sure still work and will work in the next versions of the browsers, though they've been "deprecated" for over 5 years. The strict and transitional modes are so buggy and inconsistent still that I think they are the real "quirks" modes.
The point is not that CSS isn't a better way, it's just that W3C validation is a fantasy land that may come true someday. As for today? No IE does not speak XML, it just happens to be forgiving about code style enough that it allows say a "br slash" without too much complaint.
CSS is just one part of the vehicle that is a browser, and sometimes good old fashioned technology like tires and windshield wipers are still very useful.
I love to hear people who have an underinformed religious zeal for W3C standards complain that the use of tables is deprecated except for use with "tabular data". So I ask, "What defines tabular data? " The answer is usually "things that want to be displayed in neatly aligned rows". Well that's cool, so if my divs won't line up at 100% height then I can use a table instead because I want my page "to be displayed in neatly aligned rows" ? Nevermind, I'll just use CSS and then fix it with Javascript. Hey, by the way, use of your car's air bag has been deprecated except for use in wrecks.
To recap, W3C has no real authority. Browsers are imperfect and inconsistent implementations of "standards", but are themselves the only really useful validation tool that matters. Sure some rendering time improvements come with CSS, but they are far more noticeable on old 300mhz computers.
No, none of this means that you don't need to learn CSS, of course you do, however, I think "people being ignorantly vain about the W3C and the implications of validation results" is now also "deprecated". No, genius-web-hero, not "depreciated", you are reading that wrong. Now YOU are deprecated and are slated to be removed from life, eventually.
=sw
First, validation is logically irrational. What one does is to compare a coded page that has to run in a piece of imperfect software called a Web browser to a library of standards that may or may not be supported expressly or correctly by the software people will use to access the Web site.
The W3C is a great idea and I am all for standards but it is an organization that has no authority to impose its will upon software makers. Browser makers with ideals may well endeavor to comply, while still supporting other technologies, either too new or not within the radar screen of the almost arbitrary standards of the W3C.
Microsoft is a big player in this area and will not soon even claim to endeavor to support the W3C recommendations fully or as defined. So, using a validator is about as sensible as using an Oxford English dictionary to correct New York City mobsters on their use of English. The Oxford dictionary is a fine standard to which one can aspire in English writing and usage, though it has no authority at all to impose its will on the streets of New York City.
A site can pass a validator with flying colors and still look broken or poorly rendered when viewed by a person using a browser. Unless, of course, you refrain from using a large portion of the technology available to you and design a look-alike template with lovely little blocks, borders and padding. You will then be YAWN compliant and meet the BAH (boring as hell) standards.
The W3C misuses the word "deprecated". In a world where the company that sets the standards actually makes the product, like Sun Microsystems and Java, the word "deprecated" carries some real weight and authority. It actually means that in either the next version or a near future version of their system, some things will actually cease to work and be removed. This is never the case with W3C recommendations. They have no power to deprecate anything. While no developer worth his salt uses a "center" tag or a "font" tag anymore, these tags sure still work and will work in the next versions of the browsers, though they've been "deprecated" for over 5 years. The strict and transitional modes are so buggy and inconsistent still that I think they are the real "quirks" modes.
The point is not that CSS isn't a better way, it's just that W3C validation is a fantasy land that may come true someday. As for today? No IE does not speak XML, it just happens to be forgiving about code style enough that it allows say a "br slash" without too much complaint.
CSS is just one part of the vehicle that is a browser, and sometimes good old fashioned technology like tires and windshield wipers are still very useful.
I love to hear people who have an underinformed religious zeal for W3C standards complain that the use of tables is deprecated except for use with "tabular data". So I ask, "What defines tabular data? " The answer is usually "things that want to be displayed in neatly aligned rows". Well that's cool, so if my divs won't line up at 100% height then I can use a table instead because I want my page "to be displayed in neatly aligned rows" ? Nevermind, I'll just use CSS and then fix it with Javascript. Hey, by the way, use of your car's air bag has been deprecated except for use in wrecks.
To recap, W3C has no real authority. Browsers are imperfect and inconsistent implementations of "standards", but are themselves the only really useful validation tool that matters. Sure some rendering time improvements come with CSS, but they are far more noticeable on old 300mhz computers.
No, none of this means that you don't need to learn CSS, of course you do, however, I think "people being ignorantly vain about the W3C and the implications of validation results" is now also "deprecated". No, genius-web-hero, not "depreciated", you are reading that wrong. Now YOU are deprecated and are slated to be removed from life, eventually.
=sw
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Same Old Snake Oil
A polygamist fugitive named Warren Jeffs was arrested recently. I notice this news more than others because I was raised as a "Mormon" and even used to be a missionary when I was 19 -21. I am now no longer subservient to any church.
I listen to X96 radio from "Hell" err...Salt Lake (streaming on the web). They mentioned the news, which I had heard on NPR anyway. The morning DJ's there, Kerry Jackson, Bill Allred and Gina Barberi, are dry, cynical and so much more enjoyable and real to listen to than "honking clown" DJs. They shouted something like "good, no more pliggin". Which is hilarious.
Anyone who asks me about it knows I think polygamy is evil. When the world's male and female population is near parity, polygamy simply means "many lonely men". Nature wants us each to have a mate. I think keeping more than one mate is fundamentally anti-social behavior that, perhaps indirectly, causes a lot of unhappiness and loneliness for others. I suppose not everyone is going to find someone, and life is not fair, but that's where laws and government have a role. It is good that we use our laws to enforce exploitative behaviors. Sure, not even the force of law would help me communicate better with women I like or be more attractive to them, but I like my chances in a country with no polygamy.
Warren Jeffs activities include but extend beyond polygamy.
It is almost uncanny how similar the life and behavior of a cult leader like Warren Jeffs is to that of LDS church founder Joseph Smith. Just a quick rundown. 1) Run your own city and take advantage of people's need for real estate 2) Marry teenagers to old men using social pressure 3) Hold your peers down by claiming exclusive prophetic status 4) Break laws so much of your church business must be held in secret...and so on.
Some Mormon's are stuck in cognitive dissonance about their own history, and would rather attack or review any other fact than those that touch upon threatening their beliefs. Some would rather believe things like "The Rosetta stone is a hoax" than accept that their 19th century founder had mistranslated an Egyptian scroll, for example. Facts, to many faithful, are really malleable or ignorable.
I see my friends or family placing faith in something where the investment of faith is uninformed and it is troubling and sad to me. I want them to have faith in themselves faith in their future but not faith in deceptive information held over them to maintain their loyalty...i.e. their lucrative tithing donations. It's only too bad that church systems are supported by so many people who reinforce eachother's cognitive dissonance and investment of faith in lies or under-reported history.
I agree with my blogging friend, Pete, of http://www.fiddley.com/ who says "I think a faith in Joseph Smith is misplaced by todays mormons...almost nothing about him represents modern mormonism he would not be welcome in today's church".
I don't think it means the LDS church should not exist. It should change, abandon the ridiculous and the irrational and become a community organization that can truly help people cope with their lives, truly care for eachother. Although, maybe they have to use the system they use to have enough power over people to exist, and keep people paying, and chasing that carrot of being "blessed".
Blessed is a fine word for "things are going well" like tires that are "inflated" are blessed with air (haha). But I am not sure a God arranges it or pushes it or causes it. Not that there isn't a God or couldn't be. I think if there is, God created the Universe and maybe IS the laws of physics. So sure you can thank God for every breath...but not just YOUR breaths exclusively.
Yet, as my friend Pete says, " Joseph Smith still didn't know shit about ancient Egyptian".
Religious searching is valid...but Mormons and many people of other faiths, do not search. They stop searching and buy all the stock answers given...so they no longer learn or their learning is stilted and uninformed. When you leave that faith, many great understandings are opened to you. Life can make more sense because you can see it for what it is. But other answers are no longer there...they are still just as open-ended as they are for all mankind until we all learn together what is true of life and the cosmos.
Pete: "It is like getting near the end of a crossword puzzle when you realize half your answers are wrong and you know that based on the latest answers you know are right so then the old ones become obviously false."
It's not easy to have to review your own irrational beliefs, but I would think being free of dogma is much more satisfying. You realize you can determine your own destiny and even make your own metaphor for the unexplained. You can update your understanding regularly to the best of human knowledge.
Mormons would say: "yah but what if God could tell you what is what." I agree that would be fantastic. Trouble is...there is no method of determining whether one man's fantasy is from God or not. That holy spirit is fickle, and tells muslims one thing and catholics another...and really....it is probably an innate human response from social bonding.
So, as the arrest of a Latter-day "Joseph Smith" takes place, if we can all agree that kind of behavior is not acceptable, maybe the church founded over 100 years ago by just such a character is not worth preserving and propogating. Bamboozled people can be humble enough to admit they were wrong and mourn the loss and become full, rational thinking human beings participating in the human experience rather then struggling to deny facts to preserve a fondly held faith that is having a hard time standing up to the cool winds of reason. The only alternative is one we all learned on the playground. Simply cover both ears, and repeat after me "la-la-la-la-la-la".
=sw
I listen to X96 radio from "Hell" err...Salt Lake (streaming on the web). They mentioned the news, which I had heard on NPR anyway. The morning DJ's there, Kerry Jackson, Bill Allred and Gina Barberi, are dry, cynical and so much more enjoyable and real to listen to than "honking clown" DJs. They shouted something like "good, no more pliggin". Which is hilarious.
Anyone who asks me about it knows I think polygamy is evil. When the world's male and female population is near parity, polygamy simply means "many lonely men". Nature wants us each to have a mate. I think keeping more than one mate is fundamentally anti-social behavior that, perhaps indirectly, causes a lot of unhappiness and loneliness for others. I suppose not everyone is going to find someone, and life is not fair, but that's where laws and government have a role. It is good that we use our laws to enforce exploitative behaviors. Sure, not even the force of law would help me communicate better with women I like or be more attractive to them, but I like my chances in a country with no polygamy.
Warren Jeffs activities include but extend beyond polygamy.
It is almost uncanny how similar the life and behavior of a cult leader like Warren Jeffs is to that of LDS church founder Joseph Smith. Just a quick rundown. 1) Run your own city and take advantage of people's need for real estate 2) Marry teenagers to old men using social pressure 3) Hold your peers down by claiming exclusive prophetic status 4) Break laws so much of your church business must be held in secret...and so on.
Some Mormon's are stuck in cognitive dissonance about their own history, and would rather attack or review any other fact than those that touch upon threatening their beliefs. Some would rather believe things like "The Rosetta stone is a hoax" than accept that their 19th century founder had mistranslated an Egyptian scroll, for example. Facts, to many faithful, are really malleable or ignorable.
I see my friends or family placing faith in something where the investment of faith is uninformed and it is troubling and sad to me. I want them to have faith in themselves faith in their future but not faith in deceptive information held over them to maintain their loyalty...i.e. their lucrative tithing donations. It's only too bad that church systems are supported by so many people who reinforce eachother's cognitive dissonance and investment of faith in lies or under-reported history.
I agree with my blogging friend, Pete, of http://www.fiddley.com/ who says "I think a faith in Joseph Smith is misplaced by todays mormons...almost nothing about him represents modern mormonism he would not be welcome in today's church".
I don't think it means the LDS church should not exist. It should change, abandon the ridiculous and the irrational and become a community organization that can truly help people cope with their lives, truly care for eachother. Although, maybe they have to use the system they use to have enough power over people to exist, and keep people paying, and chasing that carrot of being "blessed".
Blessed is a fine word for "things are going well" like tires that are "inflated" are blessed with air (haha). But I am not sure a God arranges it or pushes it or causes it. Not that there isn't a God or couldn't be. I think if there is, God created the Universe and maybe IS the laws of physics. So sure you can thank God for every breath...but not just YOUR breaths exclusively.
Yet, as my friend Pete says, " Joseph Smith still didn't know shit about ancient Egyptian".
Religious searching is valid...but Mormons and many people of other faiths, do not search. They stop searching and buy all the stock answers given...so they no longer learn or their learning is stilted and uninformed. When you leave that faith, many great understandings are opened to you. Life can make more sense because you can see it for what it is. But other answers are no longer there...they are still just as open-ended as they are for all mankind until we all learn together what is true of life and the cosmos.
Pete: "It is like getting near the end of a crossword puzzle when you realize half your answers are wrong and you know that based on the latest answers you know are right so then the old ones become obviously false."
It's not easy to have to review your own irrational beliefs, but I would think being free of dogma is much more satisfying. You realize you can determine your own destiny and even make your own metaphor for the unexplained. You can update your understanding regularly to the best of human knowledge.
Mormons would say: "yah but what if God could tell you what is what." I agree that would be fantastic. Trouble is...there is no method of determining whether one man's fantasy is from God or not. That holy spirit is fickle, and tells muslims one thing and catholics another...and really....it is probably an innate human response from social bonding.
So, as the arrest of a Latter-day "Joseph Smith" takes place, if we can all agree that kind of behavior is not acceptable, maybe the church founded over 100 years ago by just such a character is not worth preserving and propogating. Bamboozled people can be humble enough to admit they were wrong and mourn the loss and become full, rational thinking human beings participating in the human experience rather then struggling to deny facts to preserve a fondly held faith that is having a hard time standing up to the cool winds of reason. The only alternative is one we all learned on the playground. Simply cover both ears, and repeat after me "la-la-la-la-la-la".
=sw
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Religion is not Science
I read about a Bible based museum today on Yahoo.
The founder, Ken Ham, says:
"If the Bible is the word of God, and its history really is true, that's our presupposition or axiom, and we are starting there,..."
I find this idea of teaching religious ideas as science appallingly flawed.
I cannot say there is no one out there...no smarter being somewhere across the galaxies who may be a God to us but is perhaps no god at all. I cannot say that there is no divine being outside the physics we know in some ulterior Universe. Maybe our entire Universe exists in some kind of multi-dimensional "Fish Tank" at the back of God's garage. I cannot rule it out.
With the same exact limitations, I believe no one can exact sharable facts about the will or nature of God outside the pursuits of science. My religion is everything I know, nothing more nothing less.
I can develop a spiritual life. I am able personally and feel spirituality, pray to and believe in whatever seems to give me the feelings I desire to have. I think we have adapted these mechanisms as human beings to help us reduce stress, focus on what we can manage and control at any given moment and not use our big pattern-finding, problem-solving brains to worry constantly.
We often see what we want to see. We gather evidence that supports our desired presumptions. Thus, something like the breaking of the Bosporus (around 5500 BC) in present day Turkey. This event allowed water from the Aegean Sea to flow into the once lower lying Black Sea. The breach may have flooded so many lands to such a great degree that many thought the world was flooded and wrote that in their traditions. Since this is a water world, there is evidence of flooding and ancient water flow almost everywhere. If a person imposes a token of belief upon the evidence it would be easy to gather hints of support in the natural world for what is believed. Such as in the case of a belief in a global flood. This is, however, the opposite of the scientific method. We must let evidence speak for itself and accept that our postulations must be negatable or may be entirely disproved by reality.
I imagine a news report from today being carried on as a story for many generations. It would eventually gain in fanciful proportion, the original context lost. Something like "It was as if the world were crashing down on us and it was the end!" could become "And behold, worlds did crash upon them in those end times.", after years of translation. These words and the value people place in them may be exploited to coax behaviors out of people, making religion a dangerous tool for manipulation. It always seems that religious people even recognize this kind of exploitation in "other people's" belief systems, their own somehow naturally immune.
When people attempt to connect their spiritual feelings in those personal experiences to "Knowledge" of the Universe or learning... It runs a great risk of producing conclusions that are nonsense, laden with bias, agenda and personal interpretation. Believing this way can be dangerous to society. Beliefs are a fine aspect of the human experience and can even inspire the labors of scientists, but beliefs are not science. The attempt to stretch this extrapolation is fraught with pitfalls of ignorance. It is a sadly self-imposed ignorance.
Many believers who inappropriately elevate the importance of their thinking over observed facts, sometimed fail to even study or consider the Universe, physics..the orbit or rotation of the moon...the science of evolution, the chemistry of life. They do not look and do not see. Fearing, perhaps that reason and knowledge might break the spell of comfort delusion provides.
Religious faith and scientific knowledge can share the same mind, but one must understand the personal emotional nature of the spiritual and not try to impose those feelings upon the search for facts, knowledge and understanding or especially, other people. Religion may have its place in spritual community, but is not something ever to be imposed upon scientific learning. It is simply out of its element in that regard.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge of what is. To a faithful person, it may be fine to believe science is the study of God's creation. The scientific method then let's God teach us about the world, by discovering the laws of nature and phsyics. Limiting the influence of our own presumptions about God and "what can be" according to the finite range of our own understanding.
The Bible is widely interpreted in conflicting ways. It was translated many times and modified by non-believers with intent to persuade or deceive. The Roman Emperor Constantine, a life long Pagan until his deathbed conversion to Christianity, spent much of his life guiding the process that would select which books even made it into the book. His motive was one of governing strength and political consensus, not a search for pure truth.
The Bible's components were written by the hands of imperfect people with limited understaning and knowledge. They used inherently limited human language and writing. The words were often handed down as traditions and only written down again many years later. Even if there is a God. Even if this God spoke to people, the Bible in hand now, is a highly human-influenced document. Endowing it with infallible authority is just irrational. Attempting to endow it with a sense of scientific authority is just not reasonable. It may have worth as human poetry, as a spiritual resource, but not as book of scientific knowedge of a study of nature, physics or biology or the like. Indeed, any seemingly scientific value gleaned from it is tainted by its very existence as an attempt to authorize the beloved book as a source of knowledge whose value is not scientific, but in the humanities.
Personal beliefs are simply beside the point of science. They have their place only in religious community, not in public teaching, debate or education. There we must let the facts of reality teach our open minds. We must allow ourselves to change what we believe about the sum of human knowledge as we learn more about the actual Universe we can observe, quantify for eachother and study. If we want to enjoy the escape faith provides, that is all good and well, but it is a something of a fantasy realm not to be misused as or confused with true knowledge.
=sw
The founder, Ken Ham, says:
"If the Bible is the word of God, and its history really is true, that's our presupposition or axiom, and we are starting there,..."
I find this idea of teaching religious ideas as science appallingly flawed.
I cannot say there is no one out there...no smarter being somewhere across the galaxies who may be a God to us but is perhaps no god at all. I cannot say that there is no divine being outside the physics we know in some ulterior Universe. Maybe our entire Universe exists in some kind of multi-dimensional "Fish Tank" at the back of God's garage. I cannot rule it out.
With the same exact limitations, I believe no one can exact sharable facts about the will or nature of God outside the pursuits of science. My religion is everything I know, nothing more nothing less.
I can develop a spiritual life. I am able personally and feel spirituality, pray to and believe in whatever seems to give me the feelings I desire to have. I think we have adapted these mechanisms as human beings to help us reduce stress, focus on what we can manage and control at any given moment and not use our big pattern-finding, problem-solving brains to worry constantly.
We often see what we want to see. We gather evidence that supports our desired presumptions. Thus, something like the breaking of the Bosporus (around 5500 BC) in present day Turkey. This event allowed water from the Aegean Sea to flow into the once lower lying Black Sea. The breach may have flooded so many lands to such a great degree that many thought the world was flooded and wrote that in their traditions. Since this is a water world, there is evidence of flooding and ancient water flow almost everywhere. If a person imposes a token of belief upon the evidence it would be easy to gather hints of support in the natural world for what is believed. Such as in the case of a belief in a global flood. This is, however, the opposite of the scientific method. We must let evidence speak for itself and accept that our postulations must be negatable or may be entirely disproved by reality.
I imagine a news report from today being carried on as a story for many generations. It would eventually gain in fanciful proportion, the original context lost. Something like "It was as if the world were crashing down on us and it was the end!" could become "And behold, worlds did crash upon them in those end times.", after years of translation. These words and the value people place in them may be exploited to coax behaviors out of people, making religion a dangerous tool for manipulation. It always seems that religious people even recognize this kind of exploitation in "other people's" belief systems, their own somehow naturally immune.
When people attempt to connect their spiritual feelings in those personal experiences to "Knowledge" of the Universe or learning... It runs a great risk of producing conclusions that are nonsense, laden with bias, agenda and personal interpretation. Believing this way can be dangerous to society. Beliefs are a fine aspect of the human experience and can even inspire the labors of scientists, but beliefs are not science. The attempt to stretch this extrapolation is fraught with pitfalls of ignorance. It is a sadly self-imposed ignorance.
Many believers who inappropriately elevate the importance of their thinking over observed facts, sometimed fail to even study or consider the Universe, physics..the orbit or rotation of the moon...the science of evolution, the chemistry of life. They do not look and do not see. Fearing, perhaps that reason and knowledge might break the spell of comfort delusion provides.
Religious faith and scientific knowledge can share the same mind, but one must understand the personal emotional nature of the spiritual and not try to impose those feelings upon the search for facts, knowledge and understanding or especially, other people. Religion may have its place in spritual community, but is not something ever to be imposed upon scientific learning. It is simply out of its element in that regard.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge of what is. To a faithful person, it may be fine to believe science is the study of God's creation. The scientific method then let's God teach us about the world, by discovering the laws of nature and phsyics. Limiting the influence of our own presumptions about God and "what can be" according to the finite range of our own understanding.
The Bible is widely interpreted in conflicting ways. It was translated many times and modified by non-believers with intent to persuade or deceive. The Roman Emperor Constantine, a life long Pagan until his deathbed conversion to Christianity, spent much of his life guiding the process that would select which books even made it into the book. His motive was one of governing strength and political consensus, not a search for pure truth.
The Bible's components were written by the hands of imperfect people with limited understaning and knowledge. They used inherently limited human language and writing. The words were often handed down as traditions and only written down again many years later. Even if there is a God. Even if this God spoke to people, the Bible in hand now, is a highly human-influenced document. Endowing it with infallible authority is just irrational. Attempting to endow it with a sense of scientific authority is just not reasonable. It may have worth as human poetry, as a spiritual resource, but not as book of scientific knowedge of a study of nature, physics or biology or the like. Indeed, any seemingly scientific value gleaned from it is tainted by its very existence as an attempt to authorize the beloved book as a source of knowledge whose value is not scientific, but in the humanities.
Personal beliefs are simply beside the point of science. They have their place only in religious community, not in public teaching, debate or education. There we must let the facts of reality teach our open minds. We must allow ourselves to change what we believe about the sum of human knowledge as we learn more about the actual Universe we can observe, quantify for eachother and study. If we want to enjoy the escape faith provides, that is all good and well, but it is a something of a fantasy realm not to be misused as or confused with true knowledge.
=sw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)