More on Awesomeness

My first post ever was instructions on how to be awesome. I have more thoughts. In order to be awesome be super talented and blame your poverty, on George Bush... wait... Blame in it on Wilkes-Barre.

Everyone

Everyone should have at least one amazing cup of coffee in life. Everyone should have at least one ridiculously good glass of wine. Everyone should have one awesome kiss, and at least one mystical experience.

God

When you think of God, what do you think of? Are you sure that's God? What makes you so sure? And why does it matter?
Monotheism is technically the belief in one God. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. Historically the first known montheistic faith is Judaism. If one thinks that monotheism's main distinction from polytheism is a case of numbers they would be mistaken. What makes the two "theisms" distinct is their basic understanding of "theism". It is these basic understandings that make them either one or the other. It is these basic understandings that I want to explore in this post. I want to hypothesize that polytheism is not dead, but alive with a different twist. And that monotheism is just as queer, but universally meaningful as it always has been. Many people say that they believe in "one" God, but monotheistic thinking would point out to those people that their God is unworthy of the title. Monotheism seeks a relationship with a Deity that is both personal and worthy of the title. The truth is that if this one God doesn't exist, that there is no basis for anything, and no explanation can be given for human life.
This may be taken as a reconstruction of the classic understandings of monotheism and polytheism. I am not sure that this is not a reconstruction. It may be. However, I would rather think of it as digging deeper in our defintions of monotheism and polytheism in anticipation that the improved definitions will help us with everyday life. Let me offer this definition of monotheism: The basic belief that the nature of a deity is also the truth that holds everything together. Let me offer this basic defintion of polytheism: the basic belief that the nature of a deity is that which is more powerful than the human being. These defintions are not without their assumptions. For instance, monotheism assumes a unifying truth that holds everything together. Polytheism does not assume this. Polytheism sees the chaos in the world and rejects the notion that there is an order behind it. In order to explain natural uncontrollable phenomena, they assume higher powers. The ancient polytheists gave these higher powers a personality. The modern polytheists give these higher powers an impersonal title called law. The basic belief in both cases is that truth is unrevealed. The basic reaction in both cases is to attempt to control natural phenomena; modern man through science, ancient man through religion. Monotheism assumes an order beyond the chaos. It doesn't deny the chaos, but does not exclude the possibility of a unifying order behind everything. In Judaism, the fall is what brought chaos into existence. It was not created by chaos, but with order, but when God's representative creature, the human, fell, it plunged the creation, including the mind of the man into chaos so that it appears that chaos is ultimate reality, if one accepts only the truth of one's experience. And so it appears that universality is beyond us, and therefore tempting to discard as plausible. But the existence of order itself, seen in our ability to organize civilizations, granted imperfect, is at least a part of the fabric of the universe, and cannot be denied outright unless its dismissed as an illusion at which point the believer of order could just as easily dismiss chaos as a possible illusion.
How can the Jew be sure that there is such an order? Or that this order is personal? To the second question it would be said that this order revealed Himself as "I AM". The fact that the order revealed himself affirms his existence. If this is assumed, then why can't it be the case that the search of modern man for the universal truth, is really a search for God. Is this not what Bacon and Descartes said that science should be? But this view of science ceases to be compelling when the revelation of God's revelation is made clear in our minds. Why would God reveal himself if we discover him on our own? I know the question is hypothetical. There is no way of knowing if God hasn't left some portion of truth to the searching, or some completely mysterious, and past finding out. He may have, and I believe that he has done that. That is to say more clearly, that God hasn't revealed all that there is, and all that there is to know isn't always revealed. God has given the faculty of discovery to the human mind, and in some way this can be categorized as "revelation", but if we now start asking how to distinguish from what we couldn't know without revelation and what we can know without revelation, we would be embarking on a path of misery, and also a rabbit trail. So in short, you can be a montheist and not be a Jew, but what makes you a Jew is that you insist that there are things that can't be known without revelation, and that all knowledge is subject to prior revelation. To the assertion that all things are revelation, I deem this indemonstrable, maybe not untrue, but irrelevant for now. But how does belief in order lead logically to monotheism?
If the world we see is basically chaos, how did it get here? Can something appear out of chaos? Sure. But then what we be our purpose? Our purpose cannot be dismissed as an illegitimate concern, because whether we like it or not, we all have a sense that there is a purpose, otherwise none of this would mean anything, and I also assert that without purpose you don't have emotion. For why is chaos annoying and order relieving? If the world is the product of chaos, then everything is phenomenal, including our minds which would seriously leave doubt in it's abilities to apprehend any kind of truth or order if we saw it. How could we understand our minds with our own minds unless our own minds were made with an order? We cannot know without order. We know by order. Our minds order in order to know. And the question shall be proposed that if there were a plethora of dieties, and that there was order, how would we know how it all worked out, and therefore how could it be orderly? To order is to simplify, therefore if God is order then God is one, because one is the simplest value there is. It is even more simple than zero. One can conceive of something easier than nothing.
But a dab of chaos in a world of order, makes the world chaotic, although it doesn't take over or delete the order. And so we're left to rely on faith. All knowledge has a starting point, that cannot be proven. It's not an easy world to live in because it's trying to mix order with chaos, which is really just chaos, and any sort of order that is not derivative of the order is faulty. If there is an order that is within our ability to grasp completely, then why is not already apparent, and thus why is there a problem? The only way around this is to declare all dissatisfaction with life the result of a mistaken desire. But give me faith. I need to believe that there is something or someone better than me who is in control, who is not waiting for me to do something to make something happen. Who is going to destroy chaos and make everything clear... someday. Call this blind naivety, false hope, or sad relgion, but I'd rather believe in the truth, and not be able to prove it, then believe in nothing because I can make the simple and obvious observation that complexity exists, or continue to trust modern science to figure it out (how long have we been waiting?)
I don't think that I fulfilled my original goal for this post. But I am satisfied with how it turned out. Please let me have it. Point out all the logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and nonsense. Please respond, and comment. I'm not kidding.

Milk, liquid, and the Mafia

So, I am learning Italian. The word latte' in Italian means milk in English. So when you order a latte in Italy, you're simply ordering a cold glass of milk. I don't know how you order a latte in Italy, or even if they have lattes'. Maybe an Italian latte is the same thing as an American one and in Italy you know what you're gettin based on context. Kind of like in the south where you order a soda by ordering a coke, and because of the context everyone knows what you mean. In the end I don't know. I could easily google it, but none of this is my point.
I am now officially annoyed with American products trying to pretend that they're not overtly American, like Taco Bell, which is just Grade D crap with grease all over it. On top of that I am sick of Starbucks pretentiousness. I know this is what sells it, but the problem is that the high brow simpletons who buy their product think that when they're in a Starbucks that they're having some sort of authentic European experience. Every other cafe', even award winning cafes, simply refer to their drinks as small, medium, and large on the basis that it's, well, logical. Not only is Starbucks the only place in the world that refers to its drinks as tall, grande', and venti but venti in Italian means twenty. Grande' is french for large. Tall is English for tall. What!? This is the epitome of pretentiousness, and the fact that some Americans think it's cool is embarassing. I have no interest in the art of ordering. If I every say the words: "I'd like a grande skinny double mocha, with whip, I want someone to send their cousin to kill me right there. If I must be sniped, so be it. At least I won't see it coming. And while we're being bitter. Why can't I order a "short" or "tall but not too tall" "big fat, drink with coffee and espresso with milk in it and less foam than a cappucino, which probably means "liquid" in Italian. Instead of a grande, can I order a petit? Or instead of a venti, can I get a diecici. (I think that's fifteen. I just started learning a week ago, and was tre disappointed to discover a latte was just a glass of milk.
In conclusion, can I just get a good cup of coffee. One that doesn't pretend it's somehow better because of how I order it, but one that's better because it actually tastes better).

1972: 17-0

I wish I was a dolphin; I could have monogamous sex my whole life that isn't just instinctive; eat whenever I want. intimidate sharks; be in a constant state of skinny dipping; and never have to care about the corporate ladder; while all the while entertaining inferior humans for food; being amused at how easily yet oddly they are amused. (That was weird)

LIfe

If you don't have to worry about food or shelter, you have it good. But we're never satisfied as human beings because well, that may just be what it means to be human. To be human may require the ability to transcend instinct if we want. To want something more, even if there is nothing, because nothing is as depressing as boredom. Pleasure when it comes to you, not when you go after it like a ravenous wolf, and not when you go at it for its own sake, is not a thing to be skeptical about, it's a thing to be pleased with. Thank you for reading.

Authenticity vs Discipline

Last night a Christian man told me not to do my devotions. For those of you who are curious as to how someone "does their devotions" instead of just being devoted; "doing devotions" is a cute piece of evangelical jargon that describes the daily act reading a Bible passage and praying through a prayer list. This usually takes place first thing in the morning. The logic for this is impeccable. In order for one to have the right frame of mind before venturing into their day, they must be filled with "the word of God". The problems with this are unending. First of all, it's been shown that the mind's ability to comprehend and retain information is at its worst in the waking hours, and at it's best during the hours before sleep (provided you sleep at least 7 hours; some must sleep more). So perhaps the most utilitarian time for one to "do their devotions" would be just before they go to bed. This is of course ignoring the possible spiritual and mystical aspects of doing your devotions in the morning. But this line of reasoning at least warrants my sarcasm. Still the idea of being devoted to Bible reading, and prayer, although it may it seem awkward to some people, and despite the phrase "doing devotions" being illogical coinage, is a good idea. I think discipline, provided that the end in mind is not immoral, is not just good for the soul, but is a necessity. If "doing your devotions" is your way of expressing disciplined devotion to Bible reading and prayer, then I would say that for a prof to tell his students not to do their devotions without providing any qualification is bad advice. I understand the line of thinking that would lead someone to such a conclusion. It has to do with being in an authentic relationship. I wish to show that discipline and authenticity are not mutually exclusive concepts and I ultimately wish to show that discipline, when done with authenticity is an overabundantly rewarding enterprise.
Like I said, I think that I understand that Christian man's line of reasoning. And I think that when that line is followed that he is correct in his assessment. However, the statement made is so broad and greatly susceptible to misapplication, that its hardly worth making unless a qualification is given, which of course, none is. As a reminder, he said: "Don't do your devotions". I understand the admonition. "Doing your devotions"/ reading your Bible and praying through a prayer list is not a magical formula for righteous living. It does not in and of itself make one righteous, and can lead someone to mistakenly believe that at best God's disapointment is at the end of his lack of consistency, or worse his wrath. This can lead to a horridly distorted view of God and mankind's relationship to him. God is not disapointed with someone because they did not keep their regiment. He is disappointed when someone ignores his existence completely. And whose to say that you have to read your Bible in order to recognize God's presence or existence? Who's to say that you have to pray in order to recognize God's existence? Perhaps a simple thought about God or his creation will suffice for him? Maybe a simple thank you for a meal? Certainly one of the ways to take notice of God is to pray. Certainly another way is to read the Bible that he inspired. But the issue is not one of disobedience to God's arbitrary expectations. The issue is relationship because after all, God is a person. Again God is not disapointed because you failed to be disciplined, he's disapointed because you failed to recognize him.
But the relationship motif can only go so far, because although God is a person and as such desires relationship, he is not a person that we can sense with any of the five senses. Our relationships with one another serve as illustrations or pictures of what a relationship with God can be like, but they are not identical. Having relationship with God is weird. It takes enlightenment. It takes work, and more enlightenment. It takes discipline. Discipline can appear to be inauthentic. Going with the relationship motif, think of how a significant other would act if their significant other gave them a 15 minute time slot in the morning. They wouldn't feel very significant. Indeed, they would not be very significant. But this is not a case of too much discipline, this is a case of false love, which is the attitude a lot of Christians have towards God. But think of this as well. You don't schedule things that are not a priority, so the fact that you make time for someone says that they are important. Whether or not you mean it is your problem. But at any rate discipline is an unavoidable part of relationship. Whether or not it's authentic is completely up to the initiator.
I believe that God speaks to us through nature. I believe that he speaks even louder in the Bible. So if I want to hear from God, I should read the Bible. I believe that God mystically speaks to us through prayer. Sometimes, I don't want to read the Bible. Sometimes, I don't want to pray. This might mean that I don't love God. Well, how can I love a stranger. I shouldn't expect to want to pray. It's weird, it's nothing like talking to a physical person. I shouldn't expect to want to read the Bible. It has apparent contradictions. It is hard to understand. It is out of my cultural context, and seemingly irrelevant. But God speaks in it and through it. What do I do when I have something before me that's beneficial, but I don't feel like doing it. I discipline myself. I realize that people and God are not the same thing as exercise or going on a diet or doing yoga, and that they shouldn't be treated as objects, but that doesn't mean that relationships don't take discipline in their own right. Sometimes I don't feel like counseling somebody, but they need me and I love them so I do. Is this wrong? No, if anything it's noble because I was willing to sacrifice my wants for what's needful. We do all sorts of things we don't feel like doing and this fact of life is a blessing because discipline is good for the soul. An earned reward, whether it be tangible, like money or a trophy or addulation, or intangible, like a good relationship is worth the struggle, and part of the struggle is constantly pushing ourselves to things we don't want to do. I would say that life almost revolves around this truth. Relationships take work and discipline. I wouldn't read my Bible if I didn't set aside a time. I wouldn't pray if I didn't have a prayer list. This does not mean I am unauthentic in my pursuit of God, this just means that when I finally find him, it will be that much better because it wasn't just handed to me. I worked on it. I struggled through it. I persevered. And the fact that I wanted to work on it, is a testimony that I actually do love God(if my motive is truly to love God, and not fill my self up with a feeling of self-righteousness).
Having a relationship with God is not like having a relationship with a person. My assumption is that it's more rewarding, but I have no problem not being able to yet articulate how I know God, or how I know that I know God. I see myself as just getting to know him (whatever that means). I see clues in the Bible, and find revelation in prayer, and discover meaning, purpose and motivation through Jesus Christ. But I don't expect myself to naturally start thinking about God so much, that I love him so much, that I just start obeying him instinctively. I wouldn't think about God that much if it wasn't for prayer and the Bible. I wouldn't read the Bible or pray that much if I didn't make myself do it. I wouldn't be blessed by the art of discipline if I didn't have the oppurtunity. This is for real. I want to know God, but I don't always want to do the things necessary to know him, but if they're necessary, then I must do them, and if I don't feel like doing them, I need to do them anyway in light of the comforting words of the Apostle Paul: "Neither death nor life, nor principalities nor rulers, nor things in heaven, nor things on earth, nor anything will be able to separate us from our loving Christ (italics mine)which is in Christ Jesus our Lord"
Apparently this relationship is important enough for God to work on it too.

Poetry

I find poetry strange, fun to write, enigmatic, and boring to read or listen to. Is it possible that poets just endure other poets writing for the sake of wanting the same approval when it's there turn to read? Or am I the only writer of poetry who thinks other people's poetry is mostly boring? It is interesting in one regard. It's nice to compare my own poetry to others'. Maybe this is why poets read poetry, to see their own progression. Actually when I approach poetry with this attitude, I start to enjoy reading it. I like the unending amount of styles there are out there. I like that the good poetry vs. bad poetry debate cannot ever be objective as long as free verse is allowed to flourish, (as it should be). I like having discussions about what makes a poem "good".
Still this interest in the art of poetry seems to actually be an interest not in poetry but in debate and discussion and subjectivity. I used to write self-reflective poetry, essentially emo poetry. This kind of poetry is hit or miss, depending on how good the poet is on hitting universal emotions, using personal emotions. This is a skill. An emo poem sucks if it tries to pretend that it's deep. Depth may be extrapolated by the listener or reader given his "different" experience of life, but emo poetry is content with hyperbole and tongue and cheek. And that's okay. But emo poets should stay away from writing volumes. It will eventually start to wear on you. Eventually this is what happened to me. My own emotions wore on me. My poetry became less and less an expression and more and more a form of therapy, and/or self-mutilation. Poetry has a way of being therapeutic, but it should not be used for therapy. It's art, it is therefore a self-expression on one hand, but on the other hand it's universally meaningful, full of complicated interpretations, and uninintentional expressions of the artist's soul, with the possibility that there may be an expression of just one soul. A side effect may be therapy. But to use it for therapeutic reasons is just sad, and that's all it is and nothing more. (In my humble opinion).
So I shifted my style of writing. I started writing observational poetry. I would try to pick out things that I observed every day and give them meaning. By this I mean, that I would write either about the things that we see every day and take for granted or I would write about common observations that we might not take for granted and put a new twist on them. Eventually this started massaging my ego, making me feel smart, more than impacting people. Again it was therapy.
So then I decided, that listening poets have this ability to make anything deep, especially things that they didn't write, and especially if they assume that you are smart or educated, which most people assume about me, I assume. (We just are constantly making asses out of each other aren't we?) And upon this decision, I decided that aesthetics, not influence was what was important. For people can only be influenced if they themselves want to be, and they can be influenced by anything. In light of this, poetry is not magical. So since I now believed that philosophic depth was subjective I could turn my efforts to the tickling of the ear. I would write phrases with apparently educated meanings, full of wordplay, alliteration, rhythm, but entirely void of any real meaning. Of course, just like sweet basslines make musical substance obsolete in our day and age, so will a poetry of aesthetics for its art. And both to the complete ignorance of even the more astute listeners. And so this was fun for a while, but eventually the lack of depth, left me with a longing.
So I have come to believe, that the raw emotional angle towards poetry is deficient, because it risks leaving the listener with the writer's dirty laundry and nothing to do with it. I see that philosophical/observational poetry is contrived and arrogant, though it may be done with skill, it's unauthentic, and therefore meaningless. I see that purely aesthetic is shallow, fun, but shallow. Shallowness isn't always bad, but always shallow is never good.
This is what I believe today. A good poem is one that's end is not to preach, although a preachy poem may be good. It's end is not to please the ears, although it may be pleasing to the ears. It's end is not to be witty, although it may be clever. It's end is not be a combination of any of these ends. A poet doesn't have a goal. A poem will not accomplish what it's supposed to do if the writer has a goal in mind. But neither will it accomplish it's goal by being a sort of abstract mess of words. In order for the poem to be good it has to be authentic, creative, meaningful, inspiring, thoughtful, aesthetically pleasing, it must come from the hand of a writer who has all of these things in mind, without holding any of them as an end. It's why poetry is a skill. Like any skill, it can only be truly learned by experience, and truly critiqued by discussion, and debate. I am willing to say that a poem is good, or that a poem sucks. But I also could be wrong.

Mark, Theology, and Possible Heresy

I read a commentary on the gospel of Mark today. It was a summary of the Mark's gospel as the entire book is a kind of commentary on the ethics of the New Testament. So technically I did not read a commentary. I read a thesis. I have to say to my own chagrin, that I was escstatic after reading it. It opened my eyes to two kind of related things.
The first thing that I was enlightened to was the focused ethic of Mark. This is beautifully unwrapped by the scholar Richard Hays. In a nutshell, Mark's ethic is simple to understand, and supremly difficult to put into practice. And Mark's ethic is rather cleverly conveyed. How his ethic is set forth I will not get into, but I will say that his ethic is this: The cost of following Jesus is high. In order to truly follow him we must follow in his footsteps. (Obviously!) This means that we must be willing sell all that we have and choose the path of suffering which is akin to obeying the will of God. We do not do it in order to receive a award. Obedience to God is motivation enough. Only God is able to decide what reward is in order, and he is not telling us lest our motives be less than pure. It's plain, it's simple, it's impossible with mortal man, "but with God, all things are possible".
The second thing is that this isn't necessarily the ethic of the other writers of the New Testament. Not that any fellow writers are in stark opposition to Mark's ethic, but many suggest a way of life that would allow things that Mark's harsh outlook would not. Not only this, but other writers presentation of their own worldview are distinct from one another. This reality presents several difficulties to the traditional Protestant way of doing theology. I believe that given this reality, Biblical theology needs a revamping. Protestants ( I believe that I fit fairly nicely into this category) must hold on to their assertion that the Bible is the Word of God, but must stop seeing this Word as fixed, dormant, and mechanistic. All of the ethics can be held in high esteem despite their differences. This will force Protestants to live in a constant tension. And besides, just because some things in the New Testament seem unreconcilable, doesn't mean that they are. The truth may very well be that they are reconcilable within a non-mechanistic framework. Before we feel the burden of having to make everything "make sense", maybe we should learn to appreciate what the different New Testament authors have to offer in their different perspective on the meaning of Jesus. Maybe there is more than one right way to live your life. Maybe Jesus is the key to learning how to do just that.

An Important Comment I Made a While Ago

Although there is no emprical evidence to support my claim (nevermind how overated empirical evidence is), I hold that this claim is self-evident. Obama won last night because America bought the "change" mantra. Something there is empirical data for is President Bush's job approval rating. He will be handing the presidency to Barack Obama with the worst approval rating in the history of the presidency. This fact made it easy for Democrats to win this election. All they needed to say was; "We will bring change". What does all of this mean? Of that I am not exactley sure. But I do believe that rating a presidency is meaningless, that President Bush is not a politician, and that Barack will not bring the change that people are looking for. For some politicians, politics is about values, and not politics. A politician's values are best shown by his voting record (if he is in Congress). It is difficult to separate values from politics in the person who is an executive. But I truly believe that the less popular an executive is, the more of a value person he is. Approval rating is our access into the value rating of a politician. The value person apparently doesn't care what people think. Unless of course, the politician is just really stupid. Which some would of course argue that President Bush certainly is. I would argue that he certainly is not. I do not think any public official is. Inarticulate? Oh yes, our president sounds like a blithering idiot. Stupid? If he's stupid, all those who voted for him are stupid. Are all Republicans stupid? Even the ones who are doctors, and have degrees from Yale, Harvard, ...? Do not forget that our president graduated from Yale. Yes, he was a drunk cheerleader. But weren't we all at some point? With that said my point is this. No matter what you say about President Bush, his approval rating shows that he did what he thought was best for every American, and he did not care what you thought. And admit it, this is what you hate. President Bush does not care what you think. President Bush will not change his mind, admit it when he is wrong. He is a stubborn right-wing Texan who likes oil, and likes to blow things up. And he never hinted that he was anything different. And the USA voted for him twice. President Clinton cared about what you thought. He cared enough to tell you that he didn't have any sexual relations with that woman. He cared enough to remove an evil dictator, even though no apparent American interests were at stake. If you say that no American interests were at stake in Iraq, you are lying to yourself, because Iraq has oil, and to President Bush this is certainly an apparent American interest, and he doesn't care if you think oil isn't an American interest. But, you say, "President Bush does care what we think, because he lied to us about why we were going into Iraq. He knew we wouldn't buy the oil thing as an excuse" Correction: Although Bush is a bad politician, he isn't that stupid. America almost always goes to war for oil these days. (Unless they're led by Clinton, then they let young men die so that America forgets about what happens in Billy's pants). Unless politicians have another reason, other than oil, that the public would deem legitimate, they will not go to war. I believe that President Bush really believed that there were WMD's in Iraq. I believe that he will not fess up to America, not becaused he's a dishonest politician, but because he's a stubborn bastard. Bush is not a liar. He's just a (as my friend Devon would say a "benkwrp", I think that's how you spell it)Say what you want about the president, what you see is what you get, and in these days that is something admirable in a politician. The quality we all see and despise in President Bush is the same thing that makes him admirable, and in this way he is just like the rest of us.This includes president incumbent, Barack Obama. Depending on how good of a politician he is will determine whether one day we find his excellent rhetorical skill to be no longer dazzling but instead, annoyingly vague. Do you remember when President's Bush's "kicking "sarbmp" and taking name's" attitude earned him a 90% approval rating? He wasn't being a politician then either.Some people are fearful if Obama's voting record is any indication of his values, (and they are) that America will be a pacifist state, with a Socialist economy, and millions upon millions of dead infants. Here's the thing. America cannot afford to be a pacifist state. Barack knows that. There are still too many powerful people benefitting from Captilism to allow one man to change that. Millions and millions of babies were aborted under the most pro life administration to date, not to mention the most pro life supreme court, which could change. It is however unlikely, that Barack could find 2 supreme court justices who would agree to his extreme views on the abortion issue. Nothing is going to change about Roe v. Wade. America will still be capitalist in 4 years. America wil still be killing people with big guns. Big oil won't let the Obama administration find alternate energy. And if Obama tries to be a value president, he will be unpopular, and the Republicans will win by a landslide in 12'. It depends on whether Obama is anything like Bush if we ending up liking him. And although it seems that President Bush always gets his way, it is only in the realm of foreign affairs that this happens. What this means for Obama, is that if he is a value president and not a politician, (which in our current situation will yield the same results) he will pull the troops out. But a little research on Obama, when it comes to foreign affairs, the area the President has a lot of power, maybe too much power, will reveal some scary things. If Obama is a value president, by the time we have another election, we will have a lot of unhappy evangelicals living in a truly religious pluralistic society, nearing an Islamic takeover. Not militarily but culturally. And it is on this cultural front that the battle will be waged. And many, many Americans will passionately hate the president. But, I don't believe that Obama is that ballsy. And is this belief that leads me to believe that for the next four years things will remain much the same as it has been, except we will not have much of a military presence in Iraq.It's hard to tell exactly what the next president will be like, or what he will do, or what he will actually change. My belief that Obama is not courageous enough to continue his friendly relations with Mid-eastern Muslims is met with fair confidence but not full certainty. But if he that courageous, get ready for change. But don't be too sure that Obama will not go more to the right as an executive in the limelight. Basically I am saying; Barack Obama, the values president is something to be concerned about. But the more likely scenario. Barack Obama, the politician, is as harmless to America as a young friendly intern. However, Michelle ain't Hilary.
posted by Matthew at 6:40 PM on Nov 5, 2008

What's the Big Idea?

Rhetoric is not just the ability to write persuasively. Nor is it merely the use of certain cliches to make a point. Rhetoric has been abused so much that it has become associated with these things. But rhetoric is the skill of articulating the truth. Contary to what Ned Naylor says in the movie, "Thank You For Smoking" it does matter if what you say is actually true. And it does matter how you argue. You cannot make falsehood true by clever wordsmithing. You should not use untrue wordsmithing to prove something that is true. The end does not justify the means. In fact the end may not even matter that much.
The art of rhetoric is actually quite a difficult skill. It combines the necessity of knowing what is true with the ability to communicate that truth not just compellingly, but truthfully/integrally. It is the art of persuasion and word smithing without manipulation. Manipulation, spin, and bad logic dominate the media. The sad part is that most of us aren't even aware that we're trying to be persuaded to believe something. This just makes it super simple to get us to buy into something untrue. I think that the result of that is that we live in a false reality, if it can even be called a reality. The more accurate way of saying what I mean is to say that we live in the false. We rarely question things. We often just accept things. If something tickles our feelings toward how we wished the world was, (we never stop to wonder if the way we wished the world was was the way the world should be) we accept it. Regardless of the logic, or ethic behind it. I mean we actually think, often for no reason at all, or for reasons that seem to us to be reasons that really aren't, that the American way of life is the "real world".
I know I am talking about big things. This blog is not a place for essays. It's a place where thoughts can take place. So I don't feel bad for keeping things brief, broad, and undemonstrated. I don't believe you'd read it anyway. If you're really interested you'd comment, and then we could talk and discuss. Depending on the response I get to these ideas will determine whether I go into them further. So please leave your comments. Thanks.

Such a Lazy Writer

Life is not be figured out apart from the living of it. This is an obvious paradox. Most people don't need a degree or even a brain to figure that out, and it doesn't relieve us of despair. It doesn't actually do anything, except comfort me. How? I don't really know. I just like the idea that I'm living. It's fascinating. It's enough. If you don't understand. I understand. If you do understand, well, then you understand. I'm such a lazy writer. I'll be better next time. I promise.

It's been too long. Thanks for reading everybody. I just want to say that.. Yeah that was it for now. One observation today; Loving someone is supposed to hurt. If you thought that love was going to be easy, you are a prime candidate for breakup or divorce. Is it worth it? I don't know. If you agree with Shakespeare, then I guess you have to say yes. Me... I'm skeptical. But it doesn't matter. I love someone. I don't know if it would be better if I didn't. There is no way to tell. But I really love someone. I'm reaping all the benefits. And love is actually really sweet once you get over it.

I Am Not a Philosopher. I Am Not Even an Amateur. I Just Think Too Hard.

Philosophy is hard work. That is why most people don't do it. And the reason that it seems unecessary is that most people do just fine without it. At least they think they're fine. But the questioning of the status quo, the deepest levels, is the movement of philospohy in the last 2500 years. If people never questioned why humans acted the way they did, it is doubtful that anything would ever change. A lot of us don't seem to understand, that things are the way that things are right now because people were willing to do the hard work that is philosophy. I know not whether it is a good thing to refuse to question one's current reality. It may in fact be happier. It may not be as unauthentic as philosopher types think that it is. But it matters. It matters because moral imperatives are at stake. Every philosophy leads to the acceptance of certain things and the denial of others. What you deny and what you accept is your morality. This is why philosophy matters. Because whether or not someone dies may basically depend on philosophy.
So when you see something that seems wrong, think about why it's wrong, and what is wrong with the thinking that would allow it. When you see something that's right, think about why it's right and what is right with the thinking that would allow it. If you choose to part with philosophy all together, find a religion that fits your innate sense of right and wrong. This is my advice. If you decide to do the hard work of philosophy, separate it from your religion. If they bring you to a place of contradiction. Give up on philosophy. If you can live in the balance between philosophy and religion. Live by your religion, and see if your philosophy is compatible. If at any point you can find harmony between your religion and philosophy, you will have found comfort in this.
As for me, I cannot escape philosophy. This may be my curse. But you worry about you.
If you're not a philosopher, read the Bible, and N.T. Wright.
If you're a philosopher, trust your Bible, and read Kierkagaard, listen to him carefully, but don't trust him.
Socrates is the most sincere philosopher.
Jesus is the truth.
Any questions?
There should be.

Blessing

I find that it is not my aim to be thought of as cool by other people, but that my real struggle is to believe that other people find me cool, the way that I find me cool. All of my attempts at acceptance are simply my struggle to bring cohession between what others think of me and what I think of myself. What I usually find is the case, is that when I am happy with myself, I assume that others are happy with me, and that when I am not happy with myself, I assume that others are at least disinterested. Occasionally outside opinions influence my opinions of myself, but because of this reality, the cohession I seek is never found. How subtley wretched! One thing that is tempting for me is to think that others live in their own universe of miserable self-consciousness. This is a reach for comfort since I have no way of knowing what universe others live in. In the end, this only adds to my misery. In one thought have I found comfort, and in this thought alone. And when this thought is accepted as true, then it becomes of no import whether or not I am cool. For my search for self-worth/coolness is the same as my search for this one thought which is self-evidently true before I even thought it. Here it is. I am loved. And I don't have to do anything.

The Legend of Chin

The key to truth is affirming affirmation, and denying denial. As Jon Foreman says: "Doubt your doubts, and believe your beliefs".

Reality

Why does everyone get all excited about the end of the world? Calm down. Take care of your family. Be glad you're in America. No one knows what's going to happen. Obama is neither the savior, or the anti-christ. Settle down. Take a deep breath, and don't stop watching "reality" TV. The televsion doesn't lie. Do I sound bitter?

What's the Deal?

Here's what I think about humanity and culture. Our lack of love for one another is expressed in our fear of each other. Our fear of each other is expressed in our greed. Our greed is masked behind our jobs. And the people we really hate are the people who have risen above all of it. Because, if you love people, you're not afraid of them. If you're not afraid of them, then you're not in competition with them, and therefore you are not greedy. If you are not greedy, then you are not anxious. If you are not anxious, then you are complete. Reader, it's time for your thoughts.