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.