Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted of being involved in the 9/11 plot and sentenced to life in prison five days ago. During his trial he frequently spoke out of turn, saying things about how America is evil and he is going to be a martyr and so on. He even plead guilty. Now he wants to change his plea (requires a free membership). He claims that, "he had not trusted the American legal system because he was not assigned a Muslim lawyer, and that his days in solitary confinement had provoked him to fight that system." Furthermore, he claims that "the jurors' decision to spare his life made him look at his situation anew," and now "he would welcome a trial where he could show he was not part of the 9/11 plot" in his own words: "'because I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial even with Americans as jurors.'" I wasn't aware that it was even possible to change your plea after sentencing. In fact, its not. His lawyers, in their filing of his request, "acknowledged that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibit a defendant from withdrawing a guilty plea after he is sentenced" but submitted the request anyway, due to "'their problematic relationship with Moussaoui'" who "confounded" his lawyers with his outbursts and general bizarre behavior during the original trial.
What is interesting to me is that throughout his trial he antagonized the judge and jury claiming that he wanted to be a martyr. The government strongly urged the jurors to give him the death sentence, but instead they gave him life in prison. And now he wants to change his plea. Not when he was faced with death. Although he may be telling the truth and have a newfound faith in the American system, I am skeptical. My belief, or at least a theory that seems plausible to me, is this: he wanted to die. He antagonized the court in order to provoke them so they would hate him and give him the death penalty. Now that they haven't he is faced with decades in isolation in a maximum security prison. He wanted to fly planes into buildings to die as a martyr. When that didn't work he wanted to die at the hands of "infidels" so he could still be a martyr. When instead he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with no more chances at martyrdom, he tried to escape. He doesn't want another trial because he wants to be innocent, he wants another trial so he can get another shot at martyrdom.
I don't think that this conclusion seems remarkable to many, including those involved in his trial. I'm sure he won't get another trial since it is illegal for him to change his plea at this point. But it should make us consider our approach to people like him and the culture he comes from. Our culture values life above almost anything. That is reflected by the fact that Western soldiers from many countries often are taken prisoner in wars and do not fight to the death. We were confounded by the Japanese willingness to die for their country in World War II. This enemy is very similar. An "honorable" death is better than life. These men do not want to kill for their cause, they want to die for it. This makes confronting this threat much more complicated. Military power will not deter them. As the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, it doesn't matter how many you kill, they will not give up. We cannot simply overpower them unless we are going to kill every last one of them. There can be no surrender obtained through military action. We have to win men away from this cause while they are alive. We have to change minds and hearts. I'm not saying that military action should always be out of the question -- it may be that we have to prove that we are strong and willing to fight back before they will respect us at all. But we also have to understand that military action alone will not win this war and we need to have a plan in which military action is just one tactic, not our entire strategy.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
Bill Gates: I wish I were better at acting humble
While studying for finals I came across this article. This article is about how Bill Gates doesn't really want to be the richest man alive. Check this quote out: " Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told an advertising conference in Washington state that he'd prefer not to be the world's richest person.
I like reading articles like these. It always entertains me to see rich people and celebrities pretending like they'd rather not be, especially when they could easily cure the problem they complain about if they really wanted to. Bill Gates doesn't want to be anything but the richest man alive, or he would be.
'I wish I wasn't,' Gates said in the interview broadcast online."
I'm speechless, Bill. He acts like its a disease or something. You wish you weren't? I understand that when you have that much money it feels like an endless supply, but seriously, who does he think he's kidding? If he doesn't want to be the richest man alive he can certainly solve that problem. In fact, I'll help him out. Bill Gates, if you ever read this you have my word that I will gladly accept any sized gift (above $0) that you would like to give me to help remove some of your wealth. If we can get enough people to volunteer then we might be able to lower Gates' bottom line enough to make him the second richest man in the world.
I like reading articles like these. It always entertains me to see rich people and celebrities pretending like they'd rather not be, especially when they could easily cure the problem they complain about if they really wanted to. Bill Gates doesn't want to be anything but the richest man alive, or he would be.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
NHL Playoffs, Round Two: the Western Conference is Crazy
So, first I'd like to brag that I correctly chose the winners of six out of eight series. I didn't get the number of games right in many cases, and I didn't make my predictions until after game 3, but whatever. The Flames lost, so not all the Northwest Division teams made it past the first round. However, something even cooler happened: all the top-seeded teams in the Western Conference were eliminated. That's right, numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 are going on and 1-4 are out. I think that's pretty cool. The Eastern Conference is the exact opposite, all the top seeds are going on and the bottom four are out. So, that probably says something about differences between the two conferences. Here are my second round predictions, but I have to admit that the number of games is mostly a crap shoot.
Western Conference:
Avs beat the Mighty Ducks in 6 games -- the Ducks are good this year; they did force game 7 before beating the Flames after being down 3-2 in the series. However, I think that the matchup favors Colorado in most aspects -- we have a solid defense, a red-hot goalie, and a formidible four-line attack that features a few great scoring lines as well as some grinders. I love the Avs, I'm sure I'm not objective.
Sharks beat the Oilers in 7 games -- The real matchup here will be Roloson vs. Thornton+Cheechoo. My prediction is that in the end the league's leading scorer will crack Dwayne Roloson, talented as he is.
Eastern Conference:
Sabres beat the Senators in 7 games -- this is a really tough one, but I think the Sabres played with a lot more energy and intensity than the Senators last round, in my opinion.
Hurricanes beat the Devils in 6 games -- this is another tough one. But again I'm looking at last round. The Devils steam-rolled the Rangers with little competition. It'll be hard for them to gear up to play the Hurricanes. The Hurricanes, on the other hand, just came from being down 2-0 in the first series. They have some good momentum and intensity built up after that.
Not all the series will probably go as long as I've predicted, but I don't feel good enough about any of my choices to predict a faster finish. I thought that many of the series last round were incredibly exciting and I found the games very entertaining to watch. And I think its only going to get better with these new matchups.
Western Conference:
Avs beat the Mighty Ducks in 6 games -- the Ducks are good this year; they did force game 7 before beating the Flames after being down 3-2 in the series. However, I think that the matchup favors Colorado in most aspects -- we have a solid defense, a red-hot goalie, and a formidible four-line attack that features a few great scoring lines as well as some grinders. I love the Avs, I'm sure I'm not objective.
Sharks beat the Oilers in 7 games -- The real matchup here will be Roloson vs. Thornton+Cheechoo. My prediction is that in the end the league's leading scorer will crack Dwayne Roloson, talented as he is.
Eastern Conference:
Sabres beat the Senators in 7 games -- this is a really tough one, but I think the Sabres played with a lot more energy and intensity than the Senators last round, in my opinion.
Hurricanes beat the Devils in 6 games -- this is another tough one. But again I'm looking at last round. The Devils steam-rolled the Rangers with little competition. It'll be hard for them to gear up to play the Hurricanes. The Hurricanes, on the other hand, just came from being down 2-0 in the first series. They have some good momentum and intensity built up after that.
Not all the series will probably go as long as I've predicted, but I don't feel good enough about any of my choices to predict a faster finish. I thought that many of the series last round were incredibly exciting and I found the games very entertaining to watch. And I think its only going to get better with these new matchups.
Friday, April 28, 2006
NHL Playoffs
I love hockey. And I love the Avalanche. I have a big post almost ready about the purpose of church services, but I haven't finished it yet because I'm too absorbed with the NHL playoffs (that's not really true, I'm busy with other things too, but it makes me sound more obsessed).
Anyone who follows hockey will agree, the "new NHL" has been a huge success and this years playoffs are some of the best I've ever seen. Notably, the 7th-seeded teams in both divisions are doing quite well against the 2nd-seeded (the number 7 Avs lead the series 3-0 over the number 2 Stars). Furthermore, Edmonton, the 8th seed, is tied 2-2 with the number 1 Red Wings, and that's only after the Red Wings won last night after being down 2-1. Any playoff series that involves low seeds contending or beating high-seeds is exciting -- especially when its "your" team. I didn't expect the Avalanche to fare well at all against the Stars. The Stars have been phenomenal this year, and the Avs have been... slightly above average. However, the Avs are in the most competitive division in the NHL. In the new NHL each team plays even more intra-divisional games than before. And I think this adds an interesting twist on the playoffs because, as with college football, the team with the best record may not be the best team if they had a weaker "strength of schedule." The fact that three of the eight teams in the Western Conference quaterfinals are from the Northwest Division. Furthermore, two of those teams are underdogs hanging with or dominating the higher seed they are playing.
Its been a very exciting first two weeks of the playoffs for me. Here are my hopes for the first round, although I don't know how realistic they are at this point. Really I just think it would be awesome if all the Northwest Division teams win their first round games, and I want the Red Wings to lose because I hate them, and that way we (the Avalanche... I'm totally on a "we" basis with the Avalanche) don't have to play them next round:
Avalanche beat the Stars in 4 games (sweep 'em, baby!)
Oilers beat the Red Wings in 7 games
Flames beat the Mighty Ducks in 7 games
Sharks beat the Predators in 5 games
I'm not as interested in the Eastern Conference. I don't really like the way they play in the Eastern Conference. Even with the new rules their games seem lethargic and lack an intensity that the Western Conference has. Not all the teams, New Jersey and Buffalo especially don't play this way. But enough of them that the Eastern Conference seems boring to me. If Ottawa wins their conference it will be a very interesting Stanley Cup finals, since Ottawa is generally a more boring team to watch. If New Jersey or Buffalo win, or even the Flyers, then it will be more like a Western Conference series. Here are my predictions for the Eastern Conference:
Senators beat the Lightning in 6 games
Devils beat the Rangers in 4 games
Canadiens beat the Hurricanes in 5 games (not sure at all about this one)
Sabres beat the Flyers in 6 games (maybe 7)
I know this post has nothing to do with what we normally talk about, but I'm way into the NHL playoffs right now but wanted to update my blog so it doesn't idle for another month. So here's something to talk about.
Anyone who follows hockey will agree, the "new NHL" has been a huge success and this years playoffs are some of the best I've ever seen. Notably, the 7th-seeded teams in both divisions are doing quite well against the 2nd-seeded (the number 7 Avs lead the series 3-0 over the number 2 Stars). Furthermore, Edmonton, the 8th seed, is tied 2-2 with the number 1 Red Wings, and that's only after the Red Wings won last night after being down 2-1. Any playoff series that involves low seeds contending or beating high-seeds is exciting -- especially when its "your" team. I didn't expect the Avalanche to fare well at all against the Stars. The Stars have been phenomenal this year, and the Avs have been... slightly above average. However, the Avs are in the most competitive division in the NHL. In the new NHL each team plays even more intra-divisional games than before. And I think this adds an interesting twist on the playoffs because, as with college football, the team with the best record may not be the best team if they had a weaker "strength of schedule." The fact that three of the eight teams in the Western Conference quaterfinals are from the Northwest Division. Furthermore, two of those teams are underdogs hanging with or dominating the higher seed they are playing.
Its been a very exciting first two weeks of the playoffs for me. Here are my hopes for the first round, although I don't know how realistic they are at this point. Really I just think it would be awesome if all the Northwest Division teams win their first round games, and I want the Red Wings to lose because I hate them, and that way we (the Avalanche... I'm totally on a "we" basis with the Avalanche) don't have to play them next round:
Avalanche beat the Stars in 4 games (sweep 'em, baby!)
Oilers beat the Red Wings in 7 games
Flames beat the Mighty Ducks in 7 games
Sharks beat the Predators in 5 games
I'm not as interested in the Eastern Conference. I don't really like the way they play in the Eastern Conference. Even with the new rules their games seem lethargic and lack an intensity that the Western Conference has. Not all the teams, New Jersey and Buffalo especially don't play this way. But enough of them that the Eastern Conference seems boring to me. If Ottawa wins their conference it will be a very interesting Stanley Cup finals, since Ottawa is generally a more boring team to watch. If New Jersey or Buffalo win, or even the Flyers, then it will be more like a Western Conference series. Here are my predictions for the Eastern Conference:
Senators beat the Lightning in 6 games
Devils beat the Rangers in 4 games
Canadiens beat the Hurricanes in 5 games (not sure at all about this one)
Sabres beat the Flyers in 6 games (maybe 7)
I know this post has nothing to do with what we normally talk about, but I'm way into the NHL playoffs right now but wanted to update my blog so it doesn't idle for another month. So here's something to talk about.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Doctrines of Satan
I've finally found myself with some free time and nothing better to do. After my long and, in my humble opinion, well deserved hiatus from blogging I'm back, just like I was never gone at all! Seriously, I haven't gotten any better over the course of the last month, and this one is pretty long, in my typical style.
Church doctrines, official or otherwise, that are generally unfounded infuriate me as much as Jacobus Arminius would have infuriated Calvin, had they lived at the same time. One set of doctrines in particular that bother me are those concerning Satan and other demons. The thing that bothers me most is that there is very little revealed about the nature of either in the Bible. Furthermore, many doctrines ignore what actually is in the Bible. Today most Christians, or at least most that I've met, view demons and Satan as supreme evil beings to be reviled and hated and we have some power over them when we encounter them (the amount of power varies by denomination). They also believe that Satan was once called "Lucifer" and was God's most beautiful creation and rebelled against God because he wanted more power. They believe that demons are angels that decided to follow Satan rather than God. And they believe that these creatures live in the same "hell" that they believe non-Christians will inhabit after death. Some even believe that Satan and demons will torment people in this hell. I'll start by presenting, to the best of my knowledge, what the Bible does say, and then I'll point out what the Bible does not:
Church doctrines, official or otherwise, that are generally unfounded infuriate me as much as Jacobus Arminius would have infuriated Calvin, had they lived at the same time. One set of doctrines in particular that bother me are those concerning Satan and other demons. The thing that bothers me most is that there is very little revealed about the nature of either in the Bible. Furthermore, many doctrines ignore what actually is in the Bible. Today most Christians, or at least most that I've met, view demons and Satan as supreme evil beings to be reviled and hated and we have some power over them when we encounter them (the amount of power varies by denomination). They also believe that Satan was once called "Lucifer" and was God's most beautiful creation and rebelled against God because he wanted more power. They believe that demons are angels that decided to follow Satan rather than God. And they believe that these creatures live in the same "hell" that they believe non-Christians will inhabit after death. Some even believe that Satan and demons will torment people in this hell. I'll start by presenting, to the best of my knowledge, what the Bible does say, and then I'll point out what the Bible does not:
- There is mention of Lucifer, although I do not believe that it has anything to do with Satan. Check out other translations, the word "lucifer" is only translated as a proper name in King James. In fact, the passage as a whole does not seem to imply Satan at all when read in any other translation, in my opinion.
- Satan may be able to come into the presence of God, and he might ask God permission to tempt people in certain ways, if Job is a factual account (A similar scene is painted in Zechariah, and Luke).
- Satan convinced David to take a census (what?)
- Satan tempted Jesus in the desert
- Jesus calls Peter Satan one time
- When Jesus casts out demons He says He is casting out Satan
- Jesus claims that He "saw Satan fall like lightening from Heaven" and that Christians have authority from God over all kinds of demons
- Satan enters Judas when he betrays Jesus
- Paul talks a lot about Satan being the cause of temptation and the root of evil, and says that people in sin should be "handed over to Satan" for awhile, anyway
- Paul claims that Satan stopped him from traveling to Thessalonica
- Revelation is full of stuff about Satan that I don't dare to touch, but it seems that he will be destroyed at some point
- Jesus agrees to some demons request to send them into pigs. They claim that there is an "appointed time" for Jesus to torment them, and it hasn't come yet. He doesn't hate them as much as Pentecostal do, apparently (since He lets them go into the pigs... unless this is that "appointed time" and that wasn't)
- Demons go through hard times when they aren't possessing people, and they go back to people they have possessed sometimes... and apparently they bring a party with them sometimes.
- Satan was God's most beautiful creation
- Satan was ever good
- Demons were once angels
- Satan caused demons to be what they are
- Satan and the demons live in hell
- Satan has any power over people after they die
- Satan rebelled against God
- Satan or demons can interact with inanimate objects directly
- Satan or demons can cause bad things to happen to you, like your car breaking down
- Paradise Lost = Biblical truth
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
So What?
So what if I don't post for a month? I do what I want! Between selling my house, planning my wedding, and working on my Master's I've been pretty busy lately. And I'm still pretty busy. I have some things I'm thinking about blogging about, but I haven't had the motivation to commit a chunk of my now-precious free time to it yet. So, until I do, watch these funny videos:
Fear of Girls (+10 Intelligence, +1 Universal Saving Throws, -1 charisma, and +2 melee attacks if you understand everything they say... "Mercy? You wanted mercy?! I'm chaotic neutral!!!")
Final Fantasy - in your back yard
MySpace
At least I'm good for something, right?
Fear of Girls (+10 Intelligence, +1 Universal Saving Throws, -1 charisma, and +2 melee attacks if you understand everything they say... "Mercy? You wanted mercy?! I'm chaotic neutral!!!")
Final Fantasy - in your back yard
MySpace
At least I'm good for something, right?
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Austria, Oppressor
Austria continues to amaze me with its lack of respect for the freedom of speech. Last week a British historian, David Irving, was sentenced to three years in jail in Vienna. His crime? Denying the Holocaust publicly. Don't get me wrong, I totally disagree with this guy. I think that the cause he champions is evil and that his beliefs are wrong and motivated by hatred. However, I don't believe he has done anything to deserve jail time. But now, on top of that, Austria has banned him from talking to the press because he continued to profess his disbelief of the Holocaust from jail. Austria has made it clear that it does not value freedom of speech. It has unequivocally made the statement that the government has the right to tell you what to believe, and that you are a criminal if you speak in disagreement. This attitude is the root of oppression of the worst kind, and I am amazed that the rest of the Western world seems unfazed. I'm sure that the subject of Irving's work contributes a great deal to this fact -- no one wants to be seen as siding with a Holocaust denier, nor does anyone want to be portrayed as sympathizing with his cause by speaking on his behalf. However, as people who value freedom it is our responsibility, yes I believe we are obligated, to speak out against oppression, even when it is against someone we deplore. Freedom is necessarily universal or non-existent. People in Nazi Germany were free to say what they wanted as long as it didn't contradict the party line. People in Austria today are free to say what they want as long as it doesn't contradict the government's idea of propriety. Neither of these is true freedom. No government should be allowed to tell its citizens what they must believe, and any government that seeks to silence all who hold beliefs other than their own must be viewed as an enemy of freedom.
Additionally, does Austria not realize that they are going to make a martyr of this man?
Additionally, does Austria not realize that they are going to make a martyr of this man?
Friday, March 03, 2006
Honor Among Militant Islamic Groups?
This adds an interesting undertone to world politics: Chechen rebels are mad at Hamas for meeting with the Russian government. Apparently the Chechens thought that one militant Islamic group would stand up for another and see theirs as the same cause across the globe. This echoes the Islamic call to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan, as well as the Communist mantra of the late 1800's up to current times. The idea that people with similar ideals fighting in similar circumstances are united in spirit and really part of the same movement is a common sentiment among radicals. And when such is the case it represents a much greater threat to the people standing against the radical movement. Hamas's actions should give the western world a measure of relief because they show that Hamas, at least right now, is only focused on their domestic issues. They are still a militant group that advocates the eradication of Israel and as such should not be viewed in a friendly light. However, they are not ultra-radicals with a mission to spread their violence across the world to exact global change. Of course they may well become such if they are given power and they are able to find success in their domestic concerns. I think that the question now becomes how to keep these groups disconnected, how to make each group concerned only with their local issues, and then how to resolve those local issues so the radicals can melt back into normal citizens. As long as they are able to maintain an "us vs. them" mentality they are a threat to everyone who isn't part of their "us." When groups with different primary objectives but similar ideals group each other into the "us" it makes them much more dangerous, because then they are fighting over issues of ideals and no compromise can be achieved. As long as these groups can be limited to local concerns and be nailed down to voicing real grievances then they can be worked with and their grievances dealt with. When they become part of a global idealistic movement they cannot be reasoned with and therefore have to be opposed at every step with whatever means necessary.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Ridiculous
Today I saw a girl walking across campus in shorts and a t-shirt and what appeared to be leather grain moon boots with fur coming out the top. In conclusion, I hate fashion.
Monday, February 20, 2006
True Freedom
In Austria a historian, David Irving, was sentenced to three years in jail for denying the Holocaust happened. I think this is ludicrous. How can a country claim to value freedom when people are jailed for a personal belief? Especially one that is just a dispute of facts. I do not in any way agree with this man or think that what he represents is good or right in any way. However, he is not even saying that something like the Holocaust is permissible, he is simply denying that it ever happened. It is something like a US citizen denying that slavery ever happened, or that the Japanese internment camps ever existed, or that American Indians were forced onto reservations and sometimes slaughtered for no reason. Anyone denying these facts is either ignorant or in denial -- but they are not jailed for it. Furthermore, one could go as far as to laud any of those acts as good and right and not face jail time (although they may be sued in civil court). That is true freedom of speech/press/expression -- we are allowed to believe what ever we want and we are free to share those beliefs in a peaceful manner. How can you claim to be on the side of justice and freedom when you sentence people to jail for their beliefs, however ridiculous or offensive they may be? In the US, acting on inappropriate beliefs (like the belief that incest is okay, for example) can lead to legal ramifications, but simply holding the belief cannot. That is the only way to ensure that the government cannot force people to have a certain religion or set of personal beliefs. That is how we protect the individual from tyranny. By their actions today Austria has aligned herself more with the principles of her disowned son who was the driving force behind the atrocity in question than with those dedicated to freedom who stood against him and his oppressive movement.
See other accounts at Reuters, ABC, FOX News, CNN
See other accounts at Reuters, ABC, FOX News, CNN
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Plato on America
I was reading through some quotes by Plato and found one that I really like:
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Blowing Stuff Up
Does this sound familiar? I can't imagine a full scale invasion of Iran -- I can't imagine the cost in money and lives that such an operation would involve. But I have to admit, this parallels almost exactly the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq -- Bush talks to the people of the country in his State of the Union and affirms that we think they are ruled by a corrupt government, a UN watchdog reports the country, the country maintains its right to do what it wants and makes threats... all that's left is blowing stuff up. I guess I wouldn't be that surprised if there were bombings and missile attacks against Iran, but I cannot imagine trying to invade that country. Its several times the size of Iraq and has a better military and most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are probably funded if not supplied from Iran anyway. So... no matter what happens things are probably going to get ugly in Iran pretty soon.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Sharing
I had the startling, but not shocking, revelation that most of the atoms in my body have probably been part of someone else's body. Not only have things passed through my body that have been part of another human, but the very atoms that make up my body made up someone else's. Its very interesting to me. I began thinking about it because someone mentioned the question of whether people who have been cremated can be resurrected. I find it mostly a silly question, but modestly interesting. However, my new revelation makes that line of thinking utterly ridiculous. If God needs elements of a physical body to resurrect then we are all in trouble. Who gets claim to the atoms that we share? I imagine that few people today have many atoms that they can call their own -- meaning they haven't belonged to another human. And this is another interesting thought to me. We can't really lay claim to the atoms in our bodies because they once were part of someone else's body, and one day they will be part of yet another's. This in turn brings up some interesting thought about the separation of body and soul. I reject the Western dichotomy between the two and believe that they are impossible to separate. So what do I do with this idea that each atom in my body is not unique to me? I think that it affirms that although body and soul cannot be separated, we are still more than the sum of our parts. One does not gain part of another's soul although they main gain part of their body. I'm still not sure exactly how I can now describe the fact that soul and body are one in light of this, although I am sure its possible and that I will be able to one day. I don't think that it has very profound implications for how we live our lives, but it is interesting to think about none the less. At least I find it so.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Post-modernism at a Crossroads
In my experience there are two types of post-modernists. There are those of us who see it as a cultural shift. We are tired of the constraints of modernism clumsily restricting our lives. I like to sum up this movement in one sentence: we are more interested in what is real than what is "right." We want to live life to the fullest, to be free to pursue truth and beauty. We don't want to be shackled by superstitions or irrational dogmas (or even by the dogma of strict rationalism). We tend to "deconstruct" any pre-held beliefs we hold, consider their merits, and form new beliefs based on the reality we find ourselves in. On a whole I consider it a noble endeavor aimed at liberating us from silly cultural restraints without eliminating restraint altogether. When we deconstruct something we find what is useful in it and replace it with something more appropriate. The idea is not to do away with society or restraint, the idea is to find what is real and subscribe to it rather than what society has termed "right" with no basis.
On the other hand are post-modernists who exactly what we avoid. They seek to use post-modernism as an excuse to eliminate restraint and personal responsibility altogether. In the Church this group of post-modern Christians use that title to reinterpret scripture to whatever suites their desires. They deconstruct anything they don't like and put nothing back in its place. They start with answers and frame the questions accordingly. They do not seek even what is real, just what feels best. They do not pursue truth and beauty, they pursue pleasure. And they are not really revolutionary in any way. People like this have been around in all cultures in all times. They are sometimes called hedonists. But now they have a catchy title of a movement that is still ambiguous enough that they can claim it gives them the right to behave the way they do. They try to sell irresponsibility and short-sightedness as revolutionary progress. In truth they stand against the ideals of the other post-modernists at least as much, and probably more, than the modernists.
My previous two posts about communism and the ensuing discussion prove that when immoral people become famous under the name of an ideal they forever taint that ideal. Because Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin used "communism" any similarly named movement will be associated with them. Post-modernism has the potential to be an amazing movement in restoring vitality to our culture and our world. However, it is still a young movement and is defined in the popular mind by whoever is loudest in proclaiming they hold its views. If a Marx or Lenin picks up Post-modernism and makes their definition the accepted one then we will never be free of their influence and Post-modernism will become a tainted movement. That is why those of us dedicated to the moral ideals of Post-modernism need to work to define the movement on our terms. We must not sit by and watch some ambitious and immoral figure hijack Post-modernism for their own benefit. We must insist that Post-modernism is not really this ugly specter that threatens society and civility. We must take the chances afforded us, like blogs, to spread the best ideals of Post-modernism and combat those who would turn it into an excuse for anarchy and bacchanalism. As a movement we are at a crossroads, and our actions may determine whether history sees Post-modernism as society's redeemer or a scourge on the earth like communism.
On the other hand are post-modernists who exactly what we avoid. They seek to use post-modernism as an excuse to eliminate restraint and personal responsibility altogether. In the Church this group of post-modern Christians use that title to reinterpret scripture to whatever suites their desires. They deconstruct anything they don't like and put nothing back in its place. They start with answers and frame the questions accordingly. They do not seek even what is real, just what feels best. They do not pursue truth and beauty, they pursue pleasure. And they are not really revolutionary in any way. People like this have been around in all cultures in all times. They are sometimes called hedonists. But now they have a catchy title of a movement that is still ambiguous enough that they can claim it gives them the right to behave the way they do. They try to sell irresponsibility and short-sightedness as revolutionary progress. In truth they stand against the ideals of the other post-modernists at least as much, and probably more, than the modernists.
My previous two posts about communism and the ensuing discussion prove that when immoral people become famous under the name of an ideal they forever taint that ideal. Because Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin used "communism" any similarly named movement will be associated with them. Post-modernism has the potential to be an amazing movement in restoring vitality to our culture and our world. However, it is still a young movement and is defined in the popular mind by whoever is loudest in proclaiming they hold its views. If a Marx or Lenin picks up Post-modernism and makes their definition the accepted one then we will never be free of their influence and Post-modernism will become a tainted movement. That is why those of us dedicated to the moral ideals of Post-modernism need to work to define the movement on our terms. We must not sit by and watch some ambitious and immoral figure hijack Post-modernism for their own benefit. We must insist that Post-modernism is not really this ugly specter that threatens society and civility. We must take the chances afforded us, like blogs, to spread the best ideals of Post-modernism and combat those who would turn it into an excuse for anarchy and bacchanalism. As a movement we are at a crossroads, and our actions may determine whether history sees Post-modernism as society's redeemer or a scourge on the earth like communism.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Seeing Red Again
Do you like how I worked a popular song title in as my post's title? That wasn't my original intention, but I think its very clever.
Based on the comments left on my previous post it is time to write this follow-up. Let me begin by defining communism. To do so I start at dictionary.com. Personally I find this definition misleading and inadequate. So I went to wikipedia. The article there is great. I recommend that anyone who thinks they understand communism to read this article. However, my definition of communism is farther still from the dictionary definition, so instead of communism itself, let's focus on the ideals embodied in communism, because that is what I mean when I say communism. For the rest of this post, when I say "communism" I mean "the ideal of communism." The goal of communism is to prevent the exploitation of the common man for profit. The dominant ideal is that of the worth of every man. The communist approach is to believe that every person has the same worth no matter what their social status, and as such should not be seen as a means to an end. Furthermore, communism asserts that each of us should be concerned with the welfare of everyone in our society and see it as our responsibility to help those in need. Communism stresses community. In America we look at Communism as a form of government, specifically one that opposes our own. That is not true, by my definition. In my opinion communism is a social construct, not a form of government. There have been talks and attempts of creating governments that uphold the communist ideal above all else. These have all failed, and I will talk about that later. But that doesn't mean that communism is those governments. Calvin set up a government meant to uphold Christian ideals with horrible results. That doesn't mean that Christianity is a failure, just Calvin's government. As with communism, I don't believe that Christianity should or can be the basis of any government in this life, but that doesn't stop me from being a Christian. Communism is a beneficial ideal around which evil governments have been built.
As I said earlier, we are accustomed in the US to see communism as a form of government. That prevents us from seeing the ways that our society conforms to the communist ideal. I think that our society is very communist in many ways. In fact, I am of the belief that Marx would not have felt that revolution was necessary had he lived in modern day America (on the other hand, modern day America may not look the way it does if Marx and others had not thought revolution was necessary). Here are some ideas that conform to the communist ideal and can largely draw their origins to communist thinkers: public education, minimum wage, child labor laws, overtime pay, payed time off, public transportation, pensions. There are more, of course, and there were non-communists that advocated similar practices. However, I contend that these are all consistent with the communist ideal. Capitalism alone would not stand for most of these institutions. Capitalism looks for the greatest profit. Capitalism alone does not care about individuals. When you add communism to capitalism you end up with a kind of Compassionate Capitalism in which humanity and profit are balanced. You can tip the scale one way or the other, leading to more socialist or more profit-driven societies, but I believe that both ideals are necessary for a functioning society. It is my personal belief that the communist ideals should be enforced by society and the capitalist by the government. And that is what makes me mostly Libertarian, but that is the subject of a previous post.
So this brings me to the much anticipated finale -- why communism cannot work as a formal system. As I stated earlier, the ideal of communism is the importance of each individual in a society. In order to care about the well-being of others one must have compassion towards them. And compassion cannot be dictated. When governments try to dictate compassion they become oppressive and evil. They come up with practices that lead to stagnation and poverty like forced equal distribution of wealth and the abolition of private property. These governments do succeed in eliminating a small private class that exploits the common man, but they replace it with a government that is even more exploitive. They narrow the exploiting class and broaden the group being exploited. They are evil. Trying to enforce compassion, or personal morality at all in my opinion, necessitates that a government have its hand in every aspect of each individual's life. This means that the government has to own all the wealth -- so it can be "correctly" distributed -- as well as observe each individual to make sure he is not violating the moral ideals in his personal life -- giving birth to "secret police" organizations. Furthermore, without the motivation of reward, there is a large class of people that will not put any effort into their work. This leads to a terrible economy in which most people are equal, but equal in misery rather than prosperity. There is no good way to make communism a forced system. It needs to be voluntary and stem from an individual desire to work for the good of society in general rather than themselves alone.
Communism, in my opinion, is an ideal. Like Christianity, it cannot be forced on people without disastrous results. However, past attempts by violent men to force this ideal on people should not lead us to reject it. Furthermore, our society is already heavily influenced by communist thought and conforms to its ideal in many ways. What is left is for us to further conform our own lives to match this ideal to achieve the benefits of a society in which everyone is cared for and each individual considers himself to be less important than the society at large. This leads to a Compassionate Capitalism in which workers and consumers are not exploited by owners and manufacturers in order to glean a greater (and immoral) profit. My intention in writing these posts is to express my belief that communism is not in and of itself evil, but forcing it on others is. Therefore we should not universally reject communism, only attempts to make it a form of government. Additionally, if we attempt to implement communist ideals in our own lives we may be able to change our society for the better and lead others to learn to live for something other than their own gratification and thereby lead more fulfilling lives. My final thought on the subject is that communism and Christianity share many ideals and that a more communist society is more conducive to moral Christianity, and perhaps if our society (not our government!) were more communist less Christians would find it so difficult to live up to the Christian ideals of self-sacrifice and love for those in need.
Based on the comments left on my previous post it is time to write this follow-up. Let me begin by defining communism. To do so I start at dictionary.com. Personally I find this definition misleading and inadequate. So I went to wikipedia. The article there is great. I recommend that anyone who thinks they understand communism to read this article. However, my definition of communism is farther still from the dictionary definition, so instead of communism itself, let's focus on the ideals embodied in communism, because that is what I mean when I say communism. For the rest of this post, when I say "communism" I mean "the ideal of communism." The goal of communism is to prevent the exploitation of the common man for profit. The dominant ideal is that of the worth of every man. The communist approach is to believe that every person has the same worth no matter what their social status, and as such should not be seen as a means to an end. Furthermore, communism asserts that each of us should be concerned with the welfare of everyone in our society and see it as our responsibility to help those in need. Communism stresses community. In America we look at Communism as a form of government, specifically one that opposes our own. That is not true, by my definition. In my opinion communism is a social construct, not a form of government. There have been talks and attempts of creating governments that uphold the communist ideal above all else. These have all failed, and I will talk about that later. But that doesn't mean that communism is those governments. Calvin set up a government meant to uphold Christian ideals with horrible results. That doesn't mean that Christianity is a failure, just Calvin's government. As with communism, I don't believe that Christianity should or can be the basis of any government in this life, but that doesn't stop me from being a Christian. Communism is a beneficial ideal around which evil governments have been built.
As I said earlier, we are accustomed in the US to see communism as a form of government. That prevents us from seeing the ways that our society conforms to the communist ideal. I think that our society is very communist in many ways. In fact, I am of the belief that Marx would not have felt that revolution was necessary had he lived in modern day America (on the other hand, modern day America may not look the way it does if Marx and others had not thought revolution was necessary). Here are some ideas that conform to the communist ideal and can largely draw their origins to communist thinkers: public education, minimum wage, child labor laws, overtime pay, payed time off, public transportation, pensions. There are more, of course, and there were non-communists that advocated similar practices. However, I contend that these are all consistent with the communist ideal. Capitalism alone would not stand for most of these institutions. Capitalism looks for the greatest profit. Capitalism alone does not care about individuals. When you add communism to capitalism you end up with a kind of Compassionate Capitalism in which humanity and profit are balanced. You can tip the scale one way or the other, leading to more socialist or more profit-driven societies, but I believe that both ideals are necessary for a functioning society. It is my personal belief that the communist ideals should be enforced by society and the capitalist by the government. And that is what makes me mostly Libertarian, but that is the subject of a previous post.
So this brings me to the much anticipated finale -- why communism cannot work as a formal system. As I stated earlier, the ideal of communism is the importance of each individual in a society. In order to care about the well-being of others one must have compassion towards them. And compassion cannot be dictated. When governments try to dictate compassion they become oppressive and evil. They come up with practices that lead to stagnation and poverty like forced equal distribution of wealth and the abolition of private property. These governments do succeed in eliminating a small private class that exploits the common man, but they replace it with a government that is even more exploitive. They narrow the exploiting class and broaden the group being exploited. They are evil. Trying to enforce compassion, or personal morality at all in my opinion, necessitates that a government have its hand in every aspect of each individual's life. This means that the government has to own all the wealth -- so it can be "correctly" distributed -- as well as observe each individual to make sure he is not violating the moral ideals in his personal life -- giving birth to "secret police" organizations. Furthermore, without the motivation of reward, there is a large class of people that will not put any effort into their work. This leads to a terrible economy in which most people are equal, but equal in misery rather than prosperity. There is no good way to make communism a forced system. It needs to be voluntary and stem from an individual desire to work for the good of society in general rather than themselves alone.
Communism, in my opinion, is an ideal. Like Christianity, it cannot be forced on people without disastrous results. However, past attempts by violent men to force this ideal on people should not lead us to reject it. Furthermore, our society is already heavily influenced by communist thought and conforms to its ideal in many ways. What is left is for us to further conform our own lives to match this ideal to achieve the benefits of a society in which everyone is cared for and each individual considers himself to be less important than the society at large. This leads to a Compassionate Capitalism in which workers and consumers are not exploited by owners and manufacturers in order to glean a greater (and immoral) profit. My intention in writing these posts is to express my belief that communism is not in and of itself evil, but forcing it on others is. Therefore we should not universally reject communism, only attempts to make it a form of government. Additionally, if we attempt to implement communist ideals in our own lives we may be able to change our society for the better and lead others to learn to live for something other than their own gratification and thereby lead more fulfilling lives. My final thought on the subject is that communism and Christianity share many ideals and that a more communist society is more conducive to moral Christianity, and perhaps if our society (not our government!) were more communist less Christians would find it so difficult to live up to the Christian ideals of self-sacrifice and love for those in need.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Seeing Red
During parts of my sophomore, junior, and senior years in high school I was a communist. I received a lot of different responses from different people, but was almost universally misunderstood. I was not a Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, or even a Marxist. But there were few people who could consider the idea of communism as separate from any of those. I propose that American history along with the totalitarian governments that call themselves communist have caused most Americans to discard a whole notion of social structure that may be highly beneficial to consider. Let me preface this by saying that I am no longer a communist and do not advocate communism as a good form of government for any nation today -- my next post will detail why I don't think communism can work as a formal system of government. That being said I would like to address the benefits of communism as an ideal simply to combat the overwhelming misunderstanding that I have encountered when talking about communism.
The main ideal of communism is the elimination of need. Although the Soviet Union was evil and Americans were right in labeling it as un-Christian (although I don't know that I would say the American system is "Christian" in any meaningful way, either), there is nothing more Christian than the communist ideal. In fact, one of the only records of a communist society functioning well for more than one generation is that of the early church. The driving force behind ideal communism is the desire to eliminate suffering as much as possible. To do so each individual must consider the needs of every other member in the society to be more important than his own. Then when someone has a need that he can fulfill, he sacrifices his own comfort to provide for their need. This type of communism does not necessitate the elimination of currency or democratic government. Marxism does, Communism in general does not.
Communism became popular in the mid-1800's in Europe because the Industrial Revolution had created a culture of suffering for the masses at the hands of a small minority. Factory owners enacted near slave-labor on their workers with no heed to their health or safety. It was obvious that something needed to change, that a more communist approach to society was necessary. Marxism was one attempt. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and from that point on everyone equated Communism with his particular attempt to implement it in his society. I propose that there is a more general ideal of communism that does not answer many of the "how" questions and therefore is not bad or failed the way Marxism is.
Furthermore, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and all other supposedly "communist" systems that have been made into governments are not communist at all. In fact, they are totalitarian forms of government that are closer to the ideals of Fascism than those of communism. These governments increased the suffering of their people in the name of equality rather than easing it. These governments solidified absolute control over the common man by a very small ruling class. These governments used the name "communism" to cover their true nature and do not reflect in any way the true ideals of communism. Unfortunately, these governments have so polluted the average person's mind that it is difficult for them to separate the ideal of communism from these repressive regimes.
There is more I could say on the subject, but I think this gives a decent overview (especially after this on my last post). In summary, communism is an ideal dedicated to easing the suffering of each member of the society. To this end communism necessitates that every member of the society be willing to sacrifice his excess to eliminate another member's deficit. No country has successfully implemented anything like communism as a formal government and those that claim to are actually totalitarian. Communism is a valuable if unattainable ideal and should not be so quickly dismissed simply because bad people have been associated with it. The ideals of communism are particularly useful today because they combat consumerism, cut-throat capitalism, and ferocious individuality -- all of which are cancers eating away at our society today. As I said earlier, my next post will explain why communism cannot function as a form of government. However, we should still consider its ideals when considering what a good society is and how we can improve ours. If you ever talk to someone that claims to be communist, take time to figure out if what they mean is a wonderful ideal before dismissing them as anti-Americans in league with Satan.
The main ideal of communism is the elimination of need. Although the Soviet Union was evil and Americans were right in labeling it as un-Christian (although I don't know that I would say the American system is "Christian" in any meaningful way, either), there is nothing more Christian than the communist ideal. In fact, one of the only records of a communist society functioning well for more than one generation is that of the early church. The driving force behind ideal communism is the desire to eliminate suffering as much as possible. To do so each individual must consider the needs of every other member in the society to be more important than his own. Then when someone has a need that he can fulfill, he sacrifices his own comfort to provide for their need. This type of communism does not necessitate the elimination of currency or democratic government. Marxism does, Communism in general does not.
Communism became popular in the mid-1800's in Europe because the Industrial Revolution had created a culture of suffering for the masses at the hands of a small minority. Factory owners enacted near slave-labor on their workers with no heed to their health or safety. It was obvious that something needed to change, that a more communist approach to society was necessary. Marxism was one attempt. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and from that point on everyone equated Communism with his particular attempt to implement it in his society. I propose that there is a more general ideal of communism that does not answer many of the "how" questions and therefore is not bad or failed the way Marxism is.
Furthermore, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and all other supposedly "communist" systems that have been made into governments are not communist at all. In fact, they are totalitarian forms of government that are closer to the ideals of Fascism than those of communism. These governments increased the suffering of their people in the name of equality rather than easing it. These governments solidified absolute control over the common man by a very small ruling class. These governments used the name "communism" to cover their true nature and do not reflect in any way the true ideals of communism. Unfortunately, these governments have so polluted the average person's mind that it is difficult for them to separate the ideal of communism from these repressive regimes.
There is more I could say on the subject, but I think this gives a decent overview (especially after this on my last post). In summary, communism is an ideal dedicated to easing the suffering of each member of the society. To this end communism necessitates that every member of the society be willing to sacrifice his excess to eliminate another member's deficit. No country has successfully implemented anything like communism as a formal government and those that claim to are actually totalitarian. Communism is a valuable if unattainable ideal and should not be so quickly dismissed simply because bad people have been associated with it. The ideals of communism are particularly useful today because they combat consumerism, cut-throat capitalism, and ferocious individuality -- all of which are cancers eating away at our society today. As I said earlier, my next post will explain why communism cannot function as a form of government. However, we should still consider its ideals when considering what a good society is and how we can improve ours. If you ever talk to someone that claims to be communist, take time to figure out if what they mean is a wonderful ideal before dismissing them as anti-Americans in league with Satan.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Alive
I am alive. Every so often, at fairly regular intervals, I breathe in. The oxygen I breathe diffuses across thin capillaries in my lungs. From there it enters my blood stream and is carried to every cell in my body. In each of these billions of cells there is a flurry of activity as they grow, metabolize, and reproduce -- enacting their own rough approximation of our human existence. And it is life. But it also is death because in my life I will only breathe in so many times. Resting I breathe about once per second. Assuming that times of strenuous activity are offset by times of deep rest, if I live to be 90 years old exactly I will breathe approximately 2,838,240,000 times. That's just over 2.8 billion times. Right now I have lived for 21 years, 5 months, 27 days, and somewhere over 12 hours. That means that I have already breathed somewhere near 680,529,600 times. That means I have about 2.2 billion breathes left to take. There goes one. And another one. I'm counting down slowly. Counting to 2.2 billion, and then I won't breathe any more. For every cell that I create, one dies. And it's getting harder and harder to keep that ratio up. It won't be long, if it hasn't started already, that I will lose cells faster than I make them. My body will age and fail and die. In less than 2.2 billion breathes. But for some reason I still tried to get the closest parking spot tonight. My life is running down as I speak and I still worried about how my clothes look before I left the house. And I am completely representative of the human race in general by doing so. Any moment I may breathe my last. 2.2 billion is the upper limit, it could turn out that I only have 700 million breathes in my life. Any moment could be my last. But I still spend hours a day playing video games. I plan for what I am going to do years from now, without really paying attention to what I'm doing now. I complain, I make promises, I procrastinate --– in general I live as though my life is going to last for a very long time to come. And it may. 2.2 billion breaths is a pretty long time. A lot can be accomplished in that time. A lot of life lived. But in the end I certainly will die. There is nothing I can do to change that. But I usually never think of that. We obsess with being alive and staying that way, and we rarely think about the fact that no matter how hard we try it's only a matter of time until we fail. I will die. I've thought for a long time that I'd come to terms with that. In some ways I have. The idea doesn't scare me; I'm not in denial about the fact. But I am in denial about exactly what that means and exactly how fast that time is coming. I live each day as though it doesn't really matter, as though it's just another day in an endless series. I breathe each breath as though I will go on breathing forever. Although my mind has accepted the fact that I will die, my life does not show a comprehension of that reality. I hope that changes before I lose too many breaths. If I only get so many, I want to make each one count. I want to be fully alive in every moment as long as I still have some breaths left in me. I want to live life to the fullest, fully aware that it will end soon. I am aware of the world around me. My senses are rich and vivid. I breathe in. And I exhale.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Revelation of a Cynic
The opportunity afforded to its citizens by America is not some transcendent dream of freedom. Rather it is control. It is the wealth of time and resources to devote to control. It is the hundred and some years of wealth and time that have already gone to this end.
I have come to realize that no matter who we are, where we are, or what we are doing, our stories are all basically the same pathetic form. We spend our time awake each day moving between filling and fighting desires. We live from meal to meal, dreaming only of what we will next consume. Our relationships are based on satisfaction. Our lives are spent working for more new and better things. Our lives are dictated by pain and avoiding pain. And when you step back and realize the meaninglessness of all of it, the horrible cycle that is our existence, it drives you crazy.
And that’s why control is so appealing. We have been given what we need to ignore the pain. When we are satisfied we can forget that our existence is dictated by the void of what we lack. And in America we have the means to find something new to satisfy when the old fails. As long as we are distracted we can pretend that we are free. We can pretend that we are happy when in reality we’re merely content.
Somewhere inside of us there is a conflict between some transcendent existence and an animal life. And the animal is winning. By ignoring the pain we are losing touch with what it is to be human. Ironically enough it is when the animal within us takes over that we lose appreciation for nature. Because only a transcendent being can appreciate nature – to the animal it represents chaos, a lack of control. Nature threatens to interrupt our satisfaction. Nature threatens to take away the structure and control that we need to forget that our lives are pitiful and meaningless. In our own contrived world we are what is most important. In comparison to nature we find that we are small and insignificant. Something has gone horribly wrong as now we are annoyed by the sounds of nature and soothed by the sounds of machines. We have become a people of comfort and ease. We have become a people of paved roads and empty parking lots.
The American dream may have something to do with freedom and life, but the American reality is a world of transient comfort. It is a world with no roots, moving from place to place, relationship to relationship, never being able to settle on anything for long for fear disturbing the fragile ball of glass, of upsetting the delicate balance that keeps its passenger in stoic comfort while he waits for his turn to die. Few and lucky are those jarred from this catatonic slumber by events still too strong or unpredictable for the American machine to control.
The greatest irony yet is that we are only truly happy when we stop running from our pain and are present with it. We stop fighting the pain, stop filling the void with excuses and shallow relationships and events. Then we have time to think, and feel. And then we know what it really means to be human. The transcendent life is born out of pain. The animal life is consumed with avoiding it. If we could stop being in a hurry all the time maybe we could enjoy the journey instead of rushing through it as fast as we can, annoyed at the lack of technology to bring us instantly to our destination. Maybe if we weren’t so concerned about being comfortable we could learn to appreciate nature. By allowing nature to exist and not dominating it we can finally elevate ourselves above it.
But what then? When we have let go of our control and allowed the pain of existence to reach us and we realize that life as we know it is hollow, where do we go from there? How can we go on living when our eyes have been opened to the nothing that is the world around us? What life is there to live when we are aware that the life we have to live is a pathetic mold? What alternative do we have?
That is where true religion comes in – religion that gives meaning to life rather than covering pain. In a transcendent life there is no fear of a higher being, of God, because we no longer crave control over our lives. We have learned to let go of control, and therefore God is no longer an affront to our mode of existence. And with God introduced, the transcendent life becomes one that is livable. Without God the transcendent life is one of hopeless despair, and in such a situation blissful ignorance is far preferred. With God, however, the transcendent life becomes one of joy and fulfillment because God gives us what we can never have on our own – true love.
I propose that one can never really know love while living the animal life. In this life all we seek is satisfaction and comfort. Love, by contrast, seeks to provide happiness for others, even if it brings pain. The best an animal can hope for is to find satisfaction in knowing that they helped someone else, they can never truly be selfless. They are always working to provide satisfaction and comfort for themselves, even if the actions look the same as love. That is to say that no matter what actions an animal takes the basic reason he takes them is because he feels better after taking them than before. In the transcendent life the concept of joy is introduced. Joy is something that the animal cannot know, because in joy man is brought to a state of well-being that is totally disconnected from his level of pain. That is to say that his actions may only increase his pain but he still gets joy from them, and therefore is better off because of them. And when there can be joy then there can be true love, because now man can be made better without concern to his own pain, but instead with concern about others.
I propose also that even if one is to attain the transcendent life without God then he will not know love. You’re welcome to try if you think you can, but I do not believe that such an action can lead to anything but despair. In time such a transcendent man will again look to his own comfort and return to the world of the animal where he can find distractions that will cover his pain. This is because I believe that joy is something foreign to the human existence and can only come from God. Of course there is no way to prove this scientifically, so I challenge the doubtful to try, personal experience seems to be the only real proof of such a theory.
Finally I propose that few if any human beings can ever become fully transcendent. Even with joy and love we are of our basic nature too selfish to completely give up caring about our own pain. And therefore we are incapable of giving up our selfish task of living for numb comfort. However, I believe that the more transcendent we become the more fulfilling our lives will be. Additionally, God holds out the hope of a life after this in which we will be fully transcendent. I believe that is the true heaven we hope for. The animals mistakenly believe it to merely be a world without pain. I conjecture that more than a world without pain it is a world where we can completely give up looking to our own needs and fully give ourselves to one another. In that way we will find true and complete fulfillment. I can say this with some certainty because this is the example that God has given. Reasonably we assume that God is fully transcendent. His actions show that He lives not to avoid pain, but rather willingly subjects Himself to it for the sake of others, namely the human race. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that when we are like God it will mean that we are fully willing to give ourselves for others, whether or not there is pain. For those who doubt that such a world is the most satisfying I leave this final argument: to be like God is to be perfect and want for nothing. God is fully transcendent. God sacrifices His own comfort for that of others and gives no care to His own pain. Therefore to be perfect and fully transcendent is to give up your own comfort for others and give no care to your own pain. To work to that end is to be a disciple of Jesus and to become more like God. I find it completely reasonable to believe that such an endeavor can only lead to a better life that is more fulfilling. I cannot see how anything else is reasonable.
I have come to realize that no matter who we are, where we are, or what we are doing, our stories are all basically the same pathetic form. We spend our time awake each day moving between filling and fighting desires. We live from meal to meal, dreaming only of what we will next consume. Our relationships are based on satisfaction. Our lives are spent working for more new and better things. Our lives are dictated by pain and avoiding pain. And when you step back and realize the meaninglessness of all of it, the horrible cycle that is our existence, it drives you crazy.
And that’s why control is so appealing. We have been given what we need to ignore the pain. When we are satisfied we can forget that our existence is dictated by the void of what we lack. And in America we have the means to find something new to satisfy when the old fails. As long as we are distracted we can pretend that we are free. We can pretend that we are happy when in reality we’re merely content.
Somewhere inside of us there is a conflict between some transcendent existence and an animal life. And the animal is winning. By ignoring the pain we are losing touch with what it is to be human. Ironically enough it is when the animal within us takes over that we lose appreciation for nature. Because only a transcendent being can appreciate nature – to the animal it represents chaos, a lack of control. Nature threatens to interrupt our satisfaction. Nature threatens to take away the structure and control that we need to forget that our lives are pitiful and meaningless. In our own contrived world we are what is most important. In comparison to nature we find that we are small and insignificant. Something has gone horribly wrong as now we are annoyed by the sounds of nature and soothed by the sounds of machines. We have become a people of comfort and ease. We have become a people of paved roads and empty parking lots.
The American dream may have something to do with freedom and life, but the American reality is a world of transient comfort. It is a world with no roots, moving from place to place, relationship to relationship, never being able to settle on anything for long for fear disturbing the fragile ball of glass, of upsetting the delicate balance that keeps its passenger in stoic comfort while he waits for his turn to die. Few and lucky are those jarred from this catatonic slumber by events still too strong or unpredictable for the American machine to control.
The greatest irony yet is that we are only truly happy when we stop running from our pain and are present with it. We stop fighting the pain, stop filling the void with excuses and shallow relationships and events. Then we have time to think, and feel. And then we know what it really means to be human. The transcendent life is born out of pain. The animal life is consumed with avoiding it. If we could stop being in a hurry all the time maybe we could enjoy the journey instead of rushing through it as fast as we can, annoyed at the lack of technology to bring us instantly to our destination. Maybe if we weren’t so concerned about being comfortable we could learn to appreciate nature. By allowing nature to exist and not dominating it we can finally elevate ourselves above it.
But what then? When we have let go of our control and allowed the pain of existence to reach us and we realize that life as we know it is hollow, where do we go from there? How can we go on living when our eyes have been opened to the nothing that is the world around us? What life is there to live when we are aware that the life we have to live is a pathetic mold? What alternative do we have?
That is where true religion comes in – religion that gives meaning to life rather than covering pain. In a transcendent life there is no fear of a higher being, of God, because we no longer crave control over our lives. We have learned to let go of control, and therefore God is no longer an affront to our mode of existence. And with God introduced, the transcendent life becomes one that is livable. Without God the transcendent life is one of hopeless despair, and in such a situation blissful ignorance is far preferred. With God, however, the transcendent life becomes one of joy and fulfillment because God gives us what we can never have on our own – true love.
I propose that one can never really know love while living the animal life. In this life all we seek is satisfaction and comfort. Love, by contrast, seeks to provide happiness for others, even if it brings pain. The best an animal can hope for is to find satisfaction in knowing that they helped someone else, they can never truly be selfless. They are always working to provide satisfaction and comfort for themselves, even if the actions look the same as love. That is to say that no matter what actions an animal takes the basic reason he takes them is because he feels better after taking them than before. In the transcendent life the concept of joy is introduced. Joy is something that the animal cannot know, because in joy man is brought to a state of well-being that is totally disconnected from his level of pain. That is to say that his actions may only increase his pain but he still gets joy from them, and therefore is better off because of them. And when there can be joy then there can be true love, because now man can be made better without concern to his own pain, but instead with concern about others.
I propose also that even if one is to attain the transcendent life without God then he will not know love. You’re welcome to try if you think you can, but I do not believe that such an action can lead to anything but despair. In time such a transcendent man will again look to his own comfort and return to the world of the animal where he can find distractions that will cover his pain. This is because I believe that joy is something foreign to the human existence and can only come from God. Of course there is no way to prove this scientifically, so I challenge the doubtful to try, personal experience seems to be the only real proof of such a theory.
Finally I propose that few if any human beings can ever become fully transcendent. Even with joy and love we are of our basic nature too selfish to completely give up caring about our own pain. And therefore we are incapable of giving up our selfish task of living for numb comfort. However, I believe that the more transcendent we become the more fulfilling our lives will be. Additionally, God holds out the hope of a life after this in which we will be fully transcendent. I believe that is the true heaven we hope for. The animals mistakenly believe it to merely be a world without pain. I conjecture that more than a world without pain it is a world where we can completely give up looking to our own needs and fully give ourselves to one another. In that way we will find true and complete fulfillment. I can say this with some certainty because this is the example that God has given. Reasonably we assume that God is fully transcendent. His actions show that He lives not to avoid pain, but rather willingly subjects Himself to it for the sake of others, namely the human race. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that when we are like God it will mean that we are fully willing to give ourselves for others, whether or not there is pain. For those who doubt that such a world is the most satisfying I leave this final argument: to be like God is to be perfect and want for nothing. God is fully transcendent. God sacrifices His own comfort for that of others and gives no care to His own pain. Therefore to be perfect and fully transcendent is to give up your own comfort for others and give no care to your own pain. To work to that end is to be a disciple of Jesus and to become more like God. I find it completely reasonable to believe that such an endeavor can only lead to a better life that is more fulfilling. I cannot see how anything else is reasonable.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The Things Money can Buy
I need to get more facts about this case, but it looks like the US is using its money and military to buy it exemption from international law. According to the article, the US has convinced Jordan to return US citizens accused of war crimes to the US rather than the international court in order to secure continued economic and military support. Now, I'm not a big fan of the UN and generally think they are useless. However, undermining them in this way seems absolutely inexcusable. How can we expect any country to follow international law if we buy our way out of it? It seems like we're doing about the same as Saddam in the oil-for-food scandal. If these people are guilty of war crimes then they need to be held responsible, especially if they were on orders from the US government -- we shouldn't be able to do whatever we want around the world just because we have the largest army and most prolific economy. We should not behave like the "rouge nations." On the other hand, if these people are innocent then why worry about it? If they didn't do anything wrong then it shouldn't matter if they are sent to the international court. Either I'm missing something in this story, which very well may be the case, or the US has way overstepped its bounds. This story makes it look like the US has decided that it is above international law. And based on our actions in Iraq it would then seem like the US wants to impose its own international law making themselves accountable to no one and everyone else accountable to it. If there is not something more to this story then I am deeply disappointed and disturbed. If there is then this is an example of ridiculously skewed and unethical journalism, because they do not present any information in this article to contradict the worst case.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Pat Robertson: Probably Crazy
Pat Robertson once again says something totally inane. Apparently he suggested that Ariel Sharon's recent health problems are God's way of attacking him because he is "dividing God's land." Through his statement, Robertson has shown a loose grasp of scripture, as he is wont to do these days. It seems as though he has read only small sections of the Old Testament. Maybe he's just senile and has forgotten everything on the right of 1 Kings in the Bible. What Robertson is insinuating is ridiculous and ludicrous. If God were going to kill people who try to divide Israel, wouldn't all the Palestinians be dead by now? Not to mention the leaders of almost every other Middle Eastern country? It seems quite ridiculous that the people who want to take Israel over by force are left alone while the man who tries to save it by peace (at least some times) gets the smiting. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that God punishes people who divide Israel. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Rome, some Middle Eastern countries, and Great Britain have all owned Israel. Although most of the empires that conquered Israel eventually were destroyed, they prospered for at least awhile -- and more than one ruler's reign -- before Israel became independent again. Additionally, the original Israel was split into Israel and Judea from within after the rule of Solomon. And although God was not happy about it, He didn't strike down those who caused the separation just because they caused it. The Bible is clear that God is interested in the people of Israel far more than the land and there is no reason to believe that He would cause Sharon's severe health problems over the proposed separation. If Israel had been one country since its inception and those bent on its division or destruction always thwarted then perhaps Robertson's point would carry more weight. At present it just seems like another outrageous statement by an aging, out of touch old man. And I feel that, unless he gives good reason to do otherwise, that is the view of Robertson we should all adopt (if you hadn't already).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
