T-minus Four Hours ...

It's coming up on 6:30pm local time. I still have over 4 hours until it's "New Years" here in Tucson.

* * *
I was out burning outdated confidential papers an hour or so ago, smoking a cigar and drinking a vodka. And something struck me as I watched the flames consume the paper:

Here we are, two people on opposite ends of the earth, sharing some rather personal thoughts with one another in a forum that could be read by anyone who cared to look, or happened to stumble upon this blog. I'm an extremely private person, yet I'm writing things here I'd never write in a letter, or say in a phone conversation. Why do you suppose that is?

Among other things, I was burning canceled checks from the 1989 to 1991 time period. It was a remarkable memory trip back to a time when I was recently divorced, living back in Michigan, and attempting o date two women at one time and not have either find out about each other. Ultimately I was not successful in my attempt to keep two worlds from intersecting. I caused one woman considerable pain; I married the other.

I really don't have much to add, other than the hour or so I spent burning the checks and thinking about things was a rather reflective time. That was 16 years ago. A time of considerable transition for me. A fairly rough patch, but one I managed to survive.

It may also have been when the Lord first touched me and brought me into a search. There were several checks made out to "First United Methodist Church," which was in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I remember feeling horribly lonely one Christmas, and going to the Christmas Eve service. I recall taking communion and not having a clue what the process or protocol was, and feeling distinctly uncomfortable about engaging in a ritual for which I wasn't sure I had a foundation of any real belief. But I also recall making eye contact with the associate pastor, and seeing in his eyes a kind of compassion and understanding that made me pause.

The Lord is very patient. Fifteen years is nothing to Him. A small seed planted in 1990 was allowed to sit dormant in me.

He's equally patient with me now, as I wrestle with some fundamental aspects of belief. Hence the questions I asked.

What exactly is "love?"

This I don't really know. I suspect you're on target with your suggestion that it's more a selfless thing than a selfish thing, though in our world today that equation is inverted. I'm not certain I've ever operated from a selfless position. Possibly with relation to my dog. That sounds foolish, does it not? But there were times where I set aside all of my own interests and simply gave myself to him and his needs -- such as when he was sick, or helpless.

Are we able to really comprehend how "love" manifests itself in a creator God?

You're right -- we can't know the mind of God. What I'm struggling with is this: the love that God possesses is perfectly formed. What we see or experience on this earth is often (always?) corrupted. Are we able to comprehend even a glimmer of that perfect, selfless love? Perhaps. I alluded to something like it with my dog. I suspect you feel the same for your child.

If I'm unable to understand the concept of "love," am I then unable to appreciate the love God supposedly has for me?

This is a fundamentally important question to me. I am told that "God loves you," yet that phrase has little meaning to me. And yet, understanding that "God so love the world (or me) that he gave his only begotten Son" is central to the Christian faith. Have I ever been "unconditionally loved" by anyone? I can't imagine that I have. My upbringing was, if anything, horribly conditional. And my experience has been that I'm only of interest to others so long as I provide something for them. My perception of things may be completely false, I realize. But my perception of things is my personal reality, such as it is. And it is a terrible impediment to understanding this thing called "God's love for me."

Is it possible that I've never really loved anyone, ever?

I honestly wonder. I'm a selfish person, deep inside -- fueled by, I think, a desire to merely protect myself. Have I ever loved another human in a selfless way? I don't know. I suspect I have not. Two questions then pose themselves: 1) am I measuring myself against an unattainable goal? 2) If "no" to #1, am I able to overcome things and actually love as God would have me love sometime in my life?

* * *

Sobering thoughts, to be sure. Ironic, given this "holiday" is one traditionally observed with anything but sobriety. :-)

Grace and peace, brother.

It's good having you to "talk" to.

You're a blessing to me, to be sure.

Happy New Year !

Which will be in about an hour or so. Wherever one finds oneself, one can only offer up "Happy New Year" at 00:00 GMT, contrary to popular belief, time did not commence ticking at The Big Bang, all time originated in Britain, colonial time does not count :-)

+++

Thank you for sharing the news of that movie, and your own journey with your family through life. We have our families thrust upon us, there is no choice involved, I think we're doing ok under the circumstances. As we age our souls will be ironed out I am sure, just look at the improvement in your financial acumen after only a few years of maturing as an example of how we change.

Things are always changing aren't they?

This was brought home to me one day when I and a friend nipped into a pub in London during a rainy summer lunchtime in 2001. As I was enjoying my pint of Guinness, I looked at the water droplets slowly evaporating from my umbrella. I was spellbound. It gave me great comfort to see it. I am not sure why. Just to know that the clock is ticking, that change is always among us, even if we don't notice it - that nothing stays the same no matter how much we wish it would. For me, a "perfect" moment. Thank you Guinness :-)



+++

You asked ...

1. What exactly is "love?"
2. Are we able to really comprehend how "love" manifests itself in a creator God?
3. If I'm unable to understand the concept of "love," am I then unable to appreciate the love God supposedly has for me?
4. Is it possible that I've never really loved anyone, ever?

Ah, the easy ones :-)

1. People have been asking this for ever. But as you know, nothing can be exactly defined due to the uncertainty principle - but I will have a go at approximating what love is. Let's start by me saying what I believe love not to be.

You remember in the film Moonstruck where Cher's mom would say "Do you love him?"? And if "yes" then that was bad, because those ones "will drive you crazy". To me this is not really love although many of us mistake it for love. This is hormonal stuff, lust, infatuation all that good stuff. It's a very good substitute for love, but not something I would define as love.

Love to me is when the other persons happiness is more important than my own, I'm not sure that love can be fully expressed when there is sex involved, which is the opposite to what most people would say. But I think physical relations detract from love rather than enhance it. Okay I know this is an unpopular view, but I think it's backed up in part by The Bible. At least that bit was innerant :-)

Love is part and parcel with missing someone when they are not around.

Love can be whatever you define it to be, but it's always a positive thing, positive being relative of course.

Hmmm, I realise I failed to define love. It's a configuration of mind ... a welcome sensory imput ... a positive thing.

2. Well the only sense we have of this is from The Bible. We can thank God for creating us, which is an act of great love, something that He did not need to do. He also promises us a fabulous time after death, forever, and that's not all bad either. Really though, we cannot know the mind of God.

3. I think you are able to understand the concept of Love, because it is kind of inbuilt in you. But if you were not able, say through a mental disorder, then I think that it would indeed be difficult to appreciate it from another, God included.

4. Possible, but unlikely I would say. I don't think it gets any better than this. But if you define love to be something that you have never experienced then yes - you will never have loved (so far).

How would you answer your own questions? And a subsequent question, do you want to be loved? (Note: we all assume that love is a wanted condition, but this is an assumption nontheless).

+++

I'm going to grab a brandy now (I know, spoiled. No cigars however :-( ) And will phone my daughter who is attending a party in Norfolk (the real one, not the one in Virginia) around midnight to see if I can wish her a Happy New Year. Oh and to send the now expected tens of "Happy New Year" SMS cellphone messages ....

Life is good, let's enjoy it while we can.

Happy New Year Brother.

Show Off

I presume you actually know what that equation means. I presume you can actually follow the "balancing" of that.

I hate you. :-)

I've never been able to follow chemical equations. Even the simplest baffle me. It's like geometry proofs baffled me at one point, though I finally "saw the light" and understood those. But that light never came on for chemistry. That prevented me from majoring in the sciences at college, since taking (and passing) several chemistry classes first year was a prerequisite. I knew many a student in those days who started out an engineering (or other sciences) major, only to switch after failing in those beginning chemistry courses. They were designed to be "weeder" courses -- to separate the chaffe from the wheat, so to speak. In the business college it was Accounting 101 and 102 that served as the weeder courses. I squeaked by those.

Note 1 - I really did struggle with general ledger type accounting. "T" accounts, double-entry bookkeeping, etc. ... there was something about it I couldn't quite grasp. Oddly enough, later when I took cost accounting, I found it completely obvious. I don't know if there's something fundamentally different about cost accounting versus ledger accounting, or it was simply the passing of a year or two (with the attendant maturity).

Note 2 - The introductory chemistry classes as Michigan State University were provided on audio cassette tape, there being too many first year engineering students to hold lectures for them all. The professor was Dr. Hammer. Whether he really existed, I do not know. But his tapes were ubiquitous. And every lecture started out with, "Hello, this is Dr. Hammer ..." I have many memories of watching fellow students labor over pictures of electrons and "outer P orbitals."

* * *

Lisa and I went to the theater yesterday and saw "Walk the Line," the biopic about Johnny Cash. It stars Joaquim Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, both of whom were excellent, and both of whom did their own singing in the movie. The movie was very good -- but not perfect.

One of the story threads running in the background of that film was the relationship of Johnny Cash and his father. It made me think of my own situation, and your post tied in with the general theme of how a parent's behavior towards their developing children can have profound effects, both positive as well as negative.

My father was not overtly harsh towards us kids, but there was definitely an undertone of criticism and definitely a lack of encouragement or a sense that he was at all pleased with anything we did. It's only recently come to me that perhaps that was simply because he didn't possess the ability to express emotions like that. Knowing that does not, sadly, change the reality of the inhibitors I carry in my soul.

There's been a somewhat odd reversal in the last two or three years. My father is now approaching 80 years old; my mother 75. He is in fairly good shape, physically; she is an utter wreck. They never had much money, they have even less now. I have become one means of financial support for them, which pains my father considerably. His wounded pride is not enough to keep him from accepting my assistance, however. But that's where the reversal has come: I am now the responsible one, he is the dependent one. I try not to accentuate this, and I would never (I pray) intentionally use it to impart harm.

Having spent a day visiting them a few weeks ago, I saw the somewhat sad state of their condition. They have a roof over their heads and food on the table, and their bills are taken care of (to the best of my knowledge). But there's a sense of resigned waiting. They have no real interests, no friends, and their children are largely estranged to them at the emotional level. So they sit in their house and watch the days and years go by.

If there's something I'm supposed to do about this, I don't know what it is. I support them financially, but I am not able to do much for them emotionally.

The state of my own mind on all this is, as you'd imagine, quite confused. I'm not sure what word I'd place on my emotions. I'm not really "angry" (though my oldest sister clearly is). And "sad" is not really the right word. The word "pity" comes to mind on occasion as I think about them, but I'm not really sure if that's proper. "Anxious" is certainly applicable. "Unsure" is always present in my mind.

All this was stirred up by "Walk the Line." I'd recommend you see the movie -- if for no other reason than the glimpse into the formation of some pretty influential music in the heartland of America, circa 1955 or so ... Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, and of course, Elvis Presley.

You Brits really have nothing comparable, do you? No influential musical developments ever came out of Great Britian.

:-)

* * *

Some deeply meta-physical questions:

1. What exactly is "love?"
2. Are we able to really comprehend how "love" manifests itself in a creator God?
3. If I'm unable to understand the concept of "love," am I then unable to appreciate the love God supposedly has for me?
4. Is it possible that I've never really loved anyone, ever?

Chew on that, Mr. Chemistry-Equation. :-)

The Answer

To the most difficult equation in the world to balance. This might just work:

88 H2 + 15 Ca(CN)2 + 6 NaAlF4 + 10 FeSO4 + 3 MgSiO3 + 6 KI + 2 H3PO4 + 6 PbCrO4 + 12 BrCl + 3 CF2Cl2 + 20 SO2 -> 6 PbBr2 + 6 CrCl3 + 3 MgCO3 + 6 KAl(OH)4 + 10 Fe(SCN)3 + 2 PI3 + 3 Na2SiO3 + 15 CaF2 + 79 H2O

Look at all of that water :-)

My family

The main problem with my family is my father. He had a very tough childhood, where he was beaten regularly. I think he lost his faith in mankind then and never managed to regain it. He's still an adolescent, he never grew up. I love him dearly but my what a difficult character. To him, everything is a conspiracy theory.

My twin sisters are now 27, so they are just beginning to realize that the negativity and mistrust that they were subjected to (no physical violence) as children has had a big impact in the making of their characters. My other two sisters and myself realized this around 15 years ago when we were of that age, and have been trying to make amends ever since.

My dad never had any formal education, no qualifications, spent all of his working life laying floors. But he's not a simple chap, I think he has a mild form of whatever Nash had as portrayed in the biopic movie "A Beautiful Mind" - imaginary theories and plots everywhere.

But it's funny, my dad is always right, he never has any proof or any measurable arguments to back up his points - but he is always right nontheless.

I love my parents, some children lose a parent, or both parents, so I count myself lucky. I really hope that they don't have to bury me, it's so true that no parent should have to bury their child. So when I go home it's all celebrations because I am still here, but then dad drinks too much, and tells us all how stupid "they" are ("they" being anyone but him), and we have to cater to him.

For the past ten years I really have tried to help him, but he won't recognize his condition, always being right means that he doesn't have to.

Ah, families, gotta love 'em :-)

+++

Is that ultimately a product of the fallen nature of man?

Well I am sure it is. It's not perfect is it? And any imperfections only exist as a result of the fall.

+++

Sorry to hear that your family is all holed up in their ivory towers, we only have one life on this Earth after all. How does God want us to treat eachother? There is that love word again. Perhaps we can love from afar. I think so.

If A, then "Monkey Man"

I suspect I like "Monkey Man" soley because of my mental image of that "grizzled rock genius" Richards playing the riff. The riff is actually quite simple. It's all about the attitude, man.

* * *
"The Edge" as greatest guitarist is hard to support. I'm sure even he would agree with that. He doesn't appear to try to be anything other than what he is. I like not only his playing, but also his demeanor, what little I know of it.

* * *
Yes, we all need healing. We all go through some damaging time during our development, some more than others. Is that ultimately a product of the fallen nature of man?

What would you say is the essential issue with your family? Lack of closeness? Open hostility?

For my family it's definitely lack of closeness. We all developed behind multiple protective walls. So today we are like a group of "city-states" of old: all walled up, with watches cautiously looking out over the thick stone wall.

* * *
I will maintain -- now and forever -- that the mystery of quantum behavior does not change the fundamental assertion:

If God exists, then God exists

I suppose the key to that is the term "exists." In the realm of quantum reality, something may "exist" and "not exist" at the same time. I suppose that's your point. But God, by definition, is not of our reality; he exists outside, or above, quantum behavior. Or he doesn't exist at all.

I fully realize I can't "prove" any of those assertions.

That's the beauty of 'blogs ... if it's typed here, it's true.

Starship Troopers

Lisa might be interested in this, it's right out of the Heinlein sci-fi novel referenced in the title of this append. Exoskeletons for soliders.

http://www.philoneist.com/50226711/first_military_exoskeleton_reaches_prototype.php

I would imagine this could have many applications outside of the military, perhaps in the construction trade, or maybe for explorers?

"If A, then A" doesn't always appear to work

"If A, then A" is not always so.

"No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this," Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen wrote in a paper in 1935.

Yet our "reality" does permit this, because we can see it. How does logic cope with this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/science/27eins.html?pagewanted=1&incamp=article_popular

Healing

It occurs to me that we are all in search of some kind of healing, some of us more than others. I think possibly this is another reason why the promise offered by God and Jesus is so attractive.

Imagine if you would, an adult who feels that as a child he or she was severly let down by his or her parents. Such an individual could possibly have an inherent lack of trust of those around them, and could possibly pass on their neuroses to their offspring.

Perhaps our greatest challenge as a race, is to recognize the cause of our lack of trust, recognize it, allow for it, let it wash over us, and in doing so, heal ourselves.

You can tell I've been to visit my folks :-) Two of my sisters were there also and I lifted up a prayer of healing for my family because it needs it. I haven't seen my niece Jasmin since she was maybe 3 months old, now at three years, a surprisingly bright and engaging kid, I wonder what she'll end up doing?

+++

Ah The Colour Purple, what a movie. Notice how the R and the B match the K and the M? Is this the dual nature of addition and subtraction?

+++

Keith Richards is a grizzly rock genius (I mean, just look at him). I will check out Monkey Man again. The Edge has been voted the best guitarist in the world by one poll, I am not sure I would agree with that, clearly that title should be bestowed on slowhand. Whom I saw in concert with Cream last year, I never knew a guitar could do that live.

And Stairway is enormous.

+++

I've seen "Be Cool" and "Cinderella Man" too now. Both excellent movies.

Purple

I'm browsing through Wikipedia, learning all about ... well, lots of things ... and I notice that in one article the word "purple" is linked. So I followed the link. Here's what I discovered:

Hex triplet #660099
RGB (r, g, b) (102, 0, 153)
CMYK (c, m, y, k) N (50, 153, 0, 102)
HSV (h, s, v) (280°, 100%, 60%)

Where:

• RBG - an "additive light model" formulation for color
• CMYK - a "subtractive model" based on solid pigmentation
• HSV - is some kind of fancy something or other I didn't fully understand

There you go. Who would have thought that so simple a word would have so much background behind it?

Classic Riffs

Once again we turn to Wikipedia, which offers this as the definition for "riff" --

In music, a riff is an ostinato figure: a repeated chord progression or melodic figure, often played by the rhythm section instruments, that forms the basis or accompaniment of a rock music or jazz composition.

The term "riff" is sometimes regarded as slang, and is used primarily in discussion of forms of rock music or jazz. "Most rock musicians use 'riff' as a synonym, almost, for 'musical idea.'" (Middleton 1990, p.125)

David Brackett (1999) defines them as, "short melodic phrases," while Richard Middleton (1999) defines them as, "short rhythmic, melodic, or harmonic figures repeated to form a structural framework."

This opens things up in my mind ... I was being too limiting in my understanding of what a "riff" was when I posted my prior entry. I thought a riff was a one-time, short note progression played at the beginning of the song without other accompanyment at first. And with that in mind came "Smoke on the Water" and "Satisfaction".

Your post, as well as Wikipedia, now brings to mind others:

• Iron Man (Black Sabbath)
• Back in Black (AC/DC)
• Black Dog (Led Zeppelin)
• You Really Got Me (Kinks)
• Money (Pink Floyd)
• Sunshine of Your Love (Cream)
• Purple Haze (Jimi Hendrix)
• In a Gadda Da Vida (Iron Butterfly)
• Monkey Man (Rolling Stones)
• Walk This Way (Aerosmith)

Even with my limiting definition, I can't believe I overlooked "Money."

Given all that, I think "Smoke on the Water" may be the most famous opening riff in music, though as you say, I doubt many young people would be able to name it. They might recognize it, but they wouldn't be able to say, "Oh yeah, 'Smoke on the Water' ... Deep Purple 1970, right?"

I'm going to take this a different direction and point out something that's been on my chest for a while. I can't supress it any longer. Here goes: I think Keith Richards is a wonderful guitarist. He's not all flash like Eddie Van Halen ... but there's a certain understated coolness about his playing. In a lot of ways Edge (U2) reminds me of Keith Richards. One song in particular I like is "Monkey Man" (see list above). I have that on my MP3 player and the other day when I was out running I was listening to that song. I could just picture him standing there, cigarette hanging out of his mouth, effortlessless working the rhythm riff of that song.

* * *

I'm not intentionally maligning The Beatles by their exclusion ... it's just that I've never been much of a Beatles fan and when I stop to think about music I can't easily recall Beatles songs. And that's just stupid of me, given that Lennon/McCartney may have been the all-time masters of the catchy pop riff. To the extent I like the Beatles, it was formed more by the White album rather than earlier stuff. "Number 9" has no riff :-)

* * *

Led Zeppelin ... I'll confess I'm not a huge fan of theirs, but there are times, when the mood is right, that a song by them will be perfect. That's usually in the car, late at night. Songs that come to mind:

• When the Levee Breaks
• Kashmir
• Misty Mountain Hop

* * *

Objectively ... is "Stairway to Heaven" a good song? I can't judge ... I lived through a decade of that song being voted "The Best Song of all Time" over and over again. I've resented the song ever since.

Riff Energy

Most 5 years olds wouldn't recognize either of those riffs. But for us forty-somethings, well I guess we fall into two categories. Those who like music for entertainment but for whom music is not particularly a central part of their lives, and those who are musical wire heads who start to panic unless they are jacked into some kind of hi-fi experience 24x7. For the former I would suggest the more approachable Rolling Stones would be the first choice but for the more hardcore musical officianado I would think Deep Purple would be claimed to be more "instantly recognizable" (however it is getting rather tired now! - I am reminded of the "ABSOLUTELY NO Stairway To Heaven" sign from Wayne's World).

Now there is also an interesting question, was the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" a riff?

When does a riff become something else, like a melody. There have been some great Beatles riffs - "I Feel Fine" (Lennon), "Day Tripper" (Lennon), "Paperback Writer" (McCartney) and many others. They are all riffs, but is the one from "Norwegian Wood" a riff or a melody? Interesting.

The Launch-Jack-Black-into-hyperspace movie "School of Rock" had a nice section for riffs, they covered "Smoke on the Water", "Iron Man" and AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" if I recall correctly, all marvellous riffs. And Led Zeppelin's "The Immigrant Song" also (a nice hammer on riff in F#m, surprisingly easy to play).

But for me, technically and musically the two greatest riffs of all time are the ones from "Plug In Baby" by Muse (you have to hear this, it's classical music for the guitar neck - mental) and "Whole Lotta Love" by a British Band :-)

Hmm there is no entry for Plug-in Baby in Wikipedia but they are waiting for one, linked off of the albums reference page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Symmetry

So what's your favourite riff(s) sir?

PS. Sooo many others I like too. "Come As You Are" from Nirvana for instance, sounds great with that chorus pedal.

PPS. I think it was Clapton who said "Why play a riff on one string when you can hit two together?"

PPPS. Off to my parents house, guitar in hand, only a 300 mile round trip.

"Smoke on the Water" -- Analyzed

I'm loving this Wikipedia thing. I recognize it's not guaranteed to be accurate, nor are many of the articles written objectively, but it's still fun to browse things. For instance:

"Smoke on the Water" is a famous and influential rock song by Deep Purple. The song is known for and recognizable by its central theme, a crunching four-tone minor key blues progression (I-III-IV with a passing flat V) that is perhaps the single most famous riff in heavy metal music history. The riff is properly played without a pick, using two fingers to pluck two adjacent strings held in a V interval. Ritchie Blackmore is said to have been angry that it is so commonly played as chords with a pick nowadays.

The riff, played on electric guitar by Blackmore, is immediately joined by drums and contrapuntal electric bass and organ parts before the start of Ian Gillan's vocal. Despite the heaviness of the guitar part, constant movement and interplay within the supporting parts keeps the feel of the song from becoming leaden. The song's structure takes a contrasting verse-chorus form, with the driving verse sections building musical tension while the soaring chorus releases it.

That, you can be certain, is far more than I ever knew about the song. But darn interesting. I wish I knew more about music to better appreciate what this author was saying.

But, here's why I posted this: I'm not sure the opening riff of "Smoke on the Water" is the most famous riff in music. To be fair, the article doesn't say "in music," but rather "in heavy metal music." But I don't wish to draw that distinction here.

So, here's your opportunity to express your opinion. Which of the following riffs do you think is the most famous, the most instantly recognizable:

1. Opening riff to "Smoke on the Water" (Deep Purple)
2. Opening riff to "Can't Get No Satisfaction" (Rolling Stones)
3. Other (make your case)

Comedy Genius

That was extremely funny and entertaining, Douglas Adams watch out, you really should write a book before you shuffle off this mortal coil, oh in about 200-300 years or so. Do it !!

+++

Bass playing: yes that makes sense. The bass melody that takes us to the unexpected. Humans enjoy surprises (that's why we wrap up Christmas presents).

+++

Fusion: I remember the failed Holy Grail of the Cold Fusion announcement. Very disappointing. This latest one is not it. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) aims to prove fusion's viability and is slated to be built in France by 2016.

Here's how it will work: Two hydrogen isotopes -- deuterium and tritium -- are heated in a doughnut-shaped chamber to more than 100 million degrees Centigrade, at which point they form a plasma, or ionized gas.

Superconducting coils surrounding the chamber wall create a magnetic field that confines the plasma, forcing the deuterium and tritium nuclei to collide; when they do, they fuse to form helium nuclei, releasing neutrons.

The mass of a helium nucleus and a neutron is less than that of a deuterium nucleus and a tritium nucleus; the excess mass is converted into a tremendous amount of energy, which is imparted to the helium nuclei and the neutrons.

When the fast-moving neutrons hit the "blanket" that lines the chamber, they generate heat within it, which can be harnessed to produce electricity.

Since there's no plentiful natural source of tritium, ITER will test ways of using some of the neutrons to create tritium from lithium-bearing materials in the blanket.

+++

One of our posts in February had 22 blogcrawler comments! I wonder if it was because it contained the word "rich". "If I were a rich man, de de de de de de de de de de de de de de dum ..."

An Onion?

Perhaps the letter sequencing of the Bible is some artifact God placed in Genesis for us to figure out at some later date, when we have some new technology that's able to decipher it. I don't really know. I'd be curious to know what that lettering is all about ... but should my faith journey be derailed by this mystery? I'm not being dismissive of what you write, or of your deeper scientific curiosity ... what I'm getting at is that some people -- myself included -- have a tendency to lower our gaze a bit too far, focusing on some distracting detail of the Bible and losing sight of the bigger picture. Alistair Begg, one of my favorite radio ministers, says that hardly a week goes by when one of his congregation finds themselves bogged down in some peripheral difficulty of Scripture. This is where he admonishes them with, "Don't worry about the things you don't understand, worry about the things you do understand."

I know you'll probably have heartburn over that, but his point is really that we sometimes lose sight of the far more important things -- treat others as you would like to be treated? -- in favor of things perhaps more interesting ... or distracting.

That's my problem ... I relish the distractions ... it allows me to avoid dealing with the far more basic issues of my faith. :-)

* * *
All that said, I think you'll find that if you take the equi-distant spacing of the letters in Genesis, cross-map them to Pi, run them through a filter algorithm based on McCartney's bass line from "With a Little Help From My Friends," you'll find the following is clearly spelled out:

Dear apes: this message is coming from the intelligent life force that planted the monolith. First, check out the smooth polish we were able to achieve. Is that not cool, or what? Second, our purpose for putting this is place was two-fold: 1) to give you a spark of congnitive intelligence to advance your species, and 2) to give Arthur C. Clarke fodder for a story that would become a great movie in your year 1968. We really wish you'd limit the use of that bone to killing food and not each other ... but we suspect you won't. So, we'll see you in about a million years. Oh, by the way, when you get to the moon and you excavate the matching monolith near the crater Tyco ... don't forget to cover your ears.

Hugs and kisses. Much love.

Super-intelligent alien life force.

P.S. -- please leave a note to tell Kubrick that his "floating baby scene" will just confuse people. Well, all people except those who are stoned on weed from the "racing through the time portal" sequence.

* * *
Is there a limit to what we can ever understand? In other words, are there things that will always be a mystery? Is mystery simply part of our universe? Or is it just a question of time before we know the very mind of God?

Of course, I'd argue that we'll never know the very mind of God. But I cling tightly to the notion that God is simply beyond us or ability to understand. I both fear that and draw comfort from it.

* * *
I agree with you about Paul McCartney being an underrated bass player. I've always admired his work. I'm no musician, as you know, but it strikes me that his bass work enhances the melody. A lot of bass work I hear seems to do little more than form a kind of basic time keeping -- thump, thump, thump. Does that make any sense ... from a music point of view?

A bass guitar is really just a guitar, right ... just at a much lower register? There's no reason that a bass guitar could be a lead guitar, right?

* * *
Years ago -- 1981 to be precise -- I saw the Who in concert. I had binoculars. I spent much of the concert watching Entwistle. It was amazing. I swear both hands were striking strings at the same time.

Heaven

"Fire and water".

Fascinating radio discussion on the nature of Heaven at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml

It mentions when humans started blaming themselves ("oh what sinful creatures we are") rather than blaming God for the ills in the world. A discussion of fault in part.

I found also interesting the fact that one never gets to hear what the debaters actually believe themselves. They are just commenting on history and what other people thought. They sound like IT Consultants :-)

The Mysterious

Looking back through the blog .. you had a comment back in January .. http://ascendnextlevel.blogspot.com/2005/01/problem-of-pain.html#comments

The author of that comment did not think that God was in control of everything, which to me goes against what one would expect from a perfect being.

You were talking about the problem of pain and your response was to me more interesing ... you wrote:

"Mystery -- This is the easiest answer, but is deeply unsatisfying."

When it comes down to religious discussion that is usually what it boils down to eventually -- "it's a mystery". It's quite jolly that the most important thing in the Universe should be deeply unsatisfying don't you think? I think this single thing is the biggest problem today with people believing in God.

My observation of intelligent (and we discussed that some humans are more intelligent than others) humans grasping with the concepts in the Bible matches this.

I see them denying the fruits of investigation. "I don't want to know that ..." like the Pope who refused to look at the moons of Jupiter through Galileo's telescope. My priest once said he was not interested at all in the fact that every 50th letter in Genesis was significant.

In 1994 Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg published an article in the journal Statistical Science. It was entitled Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis. This article describes an experiment which seems to show a remarkable proximity between names of rabbis and their dates of birth or death in the Book of Genesis. These names and dates occur as sequences of letters in the text which are the same distance apart. As an example of an Equidistant Letter Sequence (or, more briefly, an ELS) , it was noticed several decades ago by Rabbi Weissmandel that the word Torah occurs spelled out as T, O, R, H (in their Hebrew equivalents) in the Book of Genesis by starting from the first T. The 50th letter after that T is an O. The 50th letter after the O is an R. And the 50th letter after the R is H. In this example, the "skip length" is 50 letters. It turns out that TORH is spelled out more than 56,000 times in the Book of Genesis (with various skip lengths). Genesis itself is slightly more than 78,000 letters long.

Someone put these letters in sequence for a reason. Who and why? I am interested to know, forget all the Drosnin stuff of course. And if letter sequences are being forced into The Bible then what does that say about the story that The Bible is telling?

For Unto Us ...

Merry Christmas to you, my brother. I trust this day finds you well, and that the grace and peace of Christ is with you in full measure!

* * *
Last night the three of us -- me, Lisa and her mother -- went to the 9:00pm Christmas Eve service at St. Andrew's Presbyterian here in Tucson. Last year, in the "old" sanctuary, the crowd was overflowing and to be assured of seating required one to be present at least 1/2 hour before the start of the service. This year, in the "new" sanctuary, which is much larger, it required no such advanced arrival. But I didn't know that. So I insisted we arrive 1/2 hour early, only to mean we sat around for 1/2 hour. It does figure! :-)

* * *
America is addicted to electronic gadgets. But I'm not sure it's just us. When I was over in Sweden back in -- oh, when was that ... 2000? -- I was stunned at how wide-spread the use of cell phones was. In that respect, Europe was out front of America.

Fusion reactors by 2016? What technological breakthrough do they expect that will permit this? It's my understanding that today the impediment is that it requires enormous energy to produce the fusion, making commercial production not feasible.

Do you remember the "Cold Fusion" hype of the 1980's? This isn't like that, is it?

Do you feel there will be an outcry over the use of fusion technology from environmentalist and the like? There is no byproduct of fusion, is there ... other than water?

* * *
No reindeer crap in my yard. The coyotes would get 'em before they had a chance to do their business. :-)

Politically correct version: HAPPY HOLIDAYS

**Disclaimer: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal.

It implies no promises by the wishers to actually implement any of the wishes for themselves or others, is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish expires within one year or until the issuance of a subsequent greeting, whichever comes first.

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit,our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice (with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all).

Furthermore, we offer our (non-binding) best wishes for the onset of the generally accepted calendar year of 2006 but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions have helped make America great. (Which is not to imply that America is any greater than any other country or is the only "America" in the western hemisphere). These wishes are offered without regard to race, creed, color, age, physical ability, choice of computerplatform or sexual preference of the wishee.

Happy (if happiness is within your belief systems) Holidays (if you recognize them)

Merry Christmas 2005

Jesus was born some 2005 years ago today. Or was he born on year 1, therefore making his birth 2004 years old today? Anyway that is not important - praise be!

+++

Right now, the internet is really fast.

+++

I know what you and the Wikipedia you mean about Entwistle. Mark King from Level 42 is pretty good also. And Paul McCartney, I don't think he ever really got the credit as a bass player that he deserved - listen to "With a little help from my friends" for an example of his touch.

+++

The human race has some challenges ahead but I am confident that we will meet them. For instance, I just read that the first experimental nuclear fusion reactor will be built in 2016. We need energy to avoid stopping - and we're going to get it through harnessing the power of the sun it would appear, in the short term anyway.

+++

Americans are apparently addicted to technology, spending between $100-$200 per month on things like broadband access and gadgets (mp3 players, laptops etc). There will be a need for whopping amounts of movement (energy) for as far out as I can see.

+++

Santa came here last night and filled up some stockings, my daughter will be coming over this afternoon to see what he brought her. I think one of the reindeers crapped on my lawn though. Naughty reindeer.

Solitude vs. Fellowship (and Misc.)

I would imagine that the two are to be experienced in conjunction with one another, rather than placed in tension. I'm not very good at the solitude thing. Nor am I much good at the fellowship thing. That's rather telling, isn't it? It explains a lot. :-)

* * *
There are times I find myself longing for the monastic lifestyle. I'm not sure I'd want to go the route of living in a bare cell with no human contact, or swearing an oath of silence. But the idea of living a life of routine, where my day is devoted to simple tasks and worship and prayer is one that I find appealing at times. Whether I'd still enjoy it two years hence -- or more -- is the another matter.

* * *
I've long been a fan of John Entwistle, late of the Who. He was who inspired me to try to learn bass, though that inspiration did not include patience. Wikipedia has an extensive write-up on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Entwistle

Some interesting passages:

Pete Townshend was often quoted that it was Entwistle who was the lead guitarist in the band, while he, being the rhythmic timekeeping element, was in effect the drummer. Moon, on the other hand, with all his flourishes round the kit, was considered by Townshend to be the equivalent of a keyboard player! Entwistle himself stated in many interviews (including one with Guitar Player's Chris Jisi in 1989) that, according to modern standards, "The Who haven't a proper bass player.

and

Entwistle developed what he called a "typewriter" approach to playing the bass. This involves positioning the right hand over the strings so all four fingers could be used to tap percussively on the strings, causing them to strike the fretboard with a distinctive twangy sound. This allows the player to play three or four strings at once, or to use several fingers on a single string. This allowed him to create passages that were at once very percussive and melodic. He used this approach to mimic the fills used by his drummers in band situations, sometimes sending the fills back at the drummers faster than the drummers themselves could play them.

I'm not really sure what all that means. But I do know that the bass line for "The Real Me" (Quadraphenia) is one the finest ever.

Agreement

Yes I was agreeing with Willard's sentiments on solitude being difficult, but adding that in my experience becoming comfortable with solitude is a good way to happiness. But isn't this against the idea of a congregation, and indeed all of Christianity?

+++

Professor Ian Stewart : http://ascendnextlevel.blogspot.com/2005/11/professor-ian-stewart.html

Hey we're self referencing now!!

The White Room

First, I can't read that title without thinking of Cream's song, "White Room." My dream is to sit down at drum set, put that song on, and wail along to the drumline of the music. I have no formal drum training, but for that song I'm not sure it's necessary.

* * *
I can only begin to relate to the issue of chronic, persistent pain ... but never fully appreciate the ordeal you went through. Here's my question: was the point of your post to agree or refute my clarification post on Willard's comment? Or was it unrelated?

The White Room

Since my ordeal with the pain of a sciatic nerve dying, this is what I share with folks:

Imagine you are in a white room, it has no doors or windows, just a single white chair in the middle. Unless you can learn to be happy in this room, you will never be truly happy.

The lesson is one of self reliance, but only up to a point.

Consistent excruciating chronic pain for months will take you to the end of yourself -- and beyond. There you find out what you are made of. I found Jesus sitting there !

A More Complete Picture

A fuller context of the paragraph I pulled would be this:

There is nothing that requires more energy of the typical American Christian than the discipline of doing nothing. The hardest thing you can get anyone to do is to do nothing. We are addicted to our world, addicted to talk. Talk is the primary way we have of managing our image for ourselves and for others. You may have a perfectly intelligent person who is alone and, when they do something stupid, they will talk to themselves and explain to themselves why they did that. Believe it or not, controlling our tongue is very important. James said that "anyone who can control their tongue is perfect." How do you control it? You get it to stop. You discover that you can breathe without talking. You discover that life goes on.

The issue is the same with solitude. The problem with solitude is not being alone, it is convincing ourselves that we are unnecessary, that the world will not collapse if we go away. Solitude is the discipline of letting go of our self-importance, letting go of our belief that we are necessary for the world to continue.

I've read several books by Willard, and one of the things he's big on is the notion of "spiritual disciplines," being very quiet and still and allowing the word of the Lord to come in the quiet of one's heart being one of those disciplines.

His point -- made here and elsewhere -- is that people seem not able to just sit still and do nothing. And I confess it is difficult for me. I've tried sitting in my office here, door closed, no PC, no radio ... and just close my eyes, focus on God, and do nothing. It's hard! There's something in me that rebels ... my body starts to physically twitch. And my mind goes absolutely bananas!

So I was unfair posting only a snippet of that. I can see how you would read that tiny paragraph I posted and draw some of the conclusions you drew.

* * *

Who again is Ian Stewart?

Humility, Rationality or Maturity

I read and read the statement you posted and I just don't understand what the author is saying! What's all this got to do with "solitude"?

dictionary.com defines "solitude" as:

1. The state or quality of being alone or remote from others.
2. A lonely or secluded place

Let's take another look at the statement from Mr. Dallas:

The problem with solitude is not being alone, ...

Ok so there is a problem with being remote from others?

... it is convincing ourselves that we are unnecessary, ...

As the author is talking about "the problem with solitude" it could be re-written as:

The problem with solitude is convincing ourselves that we are unnecessary ...

Which does not make any sense to me. This is not a problem on the part of solitude. I would not use the word "solitude" in the above sentence I would use the word "humility" or perhaps the word "rationality" or maybe even the word "maturity". In fact I would remove the phrase "the problem" completely. And "unnecessary" for what? eg. Your existence *is* necessary for the continuation of this blog for instance :-) One would also need to state what problem one is talking about, for instance:

The problem with achieving the state of humility is that we need to convince ourselves that we are uneccesary

Which is not something I agree with anyway - but my point is "The problem with solitude" does not make sense. "The problem with achieving a state of solitude" makes more sense but is that what the author means?

He then goes onto to say:

The problem with solitude is that the world will not collapse if we go away.

I don't see what this has got to do with solitude. Rationally we all believe that the world existed before we did (there was a rainy day in 1005 etc) so rationally we all believe that the world will be here after we are gone (eg. there will be a rainy day in 3005). That may not be the case. Each of us may live in a world personally created for us, all of history was invented for one person (ourselves), and as soon as we die (go away) it will all be torn down. Not provable or disprovable, but possible nontheless. The likelihood of it seems low, but that's only because we can't see a reason for it.

Then he goes on:

Solitude is the discipline of letting go of our self-importance,

Er, I do not agree with this. Imagine a prisoner in solitary confinement. He or she might think that they are the most important person on the world. I would not use the word "solitude" in the above sentence I would use the word "humility" or perhaps the word "rationality" or maybe even the word "maturity".

Solitude is letting go of our belief that we are necessary for the world to continue.

Again I would use the words "humility", "rationality" or "maturity", not solitude.

The whole sentiment of what Mr Dallas is hinting at seems very anti-Christian. Although he used the word solitude incorrectly in my humble opinion he is hinting at the fact that the individual is an unimportant piece of flotsam who is not that important on the whole. The Judo-Christian tradition is telling us that each of us are uniquely important to God, so much so that He sent His only Son to die for us.

I am most probably misunderstanding something. This is happening to me more and more lately. People are taking positions that seem completely illogical or untenable to me, but others around are nodding their heads. For instance the complexity we see with SOA, java, .NET etc. I don't feel confident in my own mind anymore when I see such glaring mistakes and everyone else in agreement.

This is why it was so refreshing talking to Ian Stewart, because I guess we all want to feel part of something and not to feel like aliens. Would you agree?

Solitude

From the website of Dallas Willard, noted Christian speaker, writer and also a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California:

The problem with solitude is not being alone, it is convincing ourselves that we are unnecessary, that the world will not collapse if we go away. Solitude is the discipline of letting go of our self-importance, letting go of our belief that we are necessary for the world to continue.

This strikes me as akin to Yoda's assertion about "letting go."

Comments?

That Saguaro cactus plant ...

... is giving everyone the bird ! I still maintain that.

That's a lovely website you have created, you're very descriptive, almost lyrical in your prose. I hope you finish it and also keep it going, a fine legacy to leave. What was it the mother said to her errant husband in Moonstruck ".. no matter what you do you will still die." But we can all be remembered.

I imagine a day where we humans won't have to die, and because I can imagine it, then surely it will come to pass. But I am not sure what this means for Heaven, maybe then we have a Heaven on Earth?

:-)

Yes I have that email-updates capability but I've never used it - I get far too many emails as it is and I like to check this http site anyways, it's in my routine now.

Surrendering our "Things"

I think the point of Luke 14:33 is very much like the central premise of Buddhism -- that is, we as humans place our trust in the wrong things. The Bible's message, over and over again, is that we should trust God and not things of this earth, be that houses, or cars, or investment accounts, or adulterous affairs, or drugs, or alcohol ... or whatever. Once our trust is firmly placed in God, then we can safely enjoy the "things" of this earth.

Note: well, not the bad things, of course. It would be mighty hard to "trust God" and continue (or resume) and adulterous affair. :-)

There really is much truth in that, but it is a very, very slippery message. I can tell you this: the times when I was most content with my faith was when I, for only moments at a time, truly did "let go" and place my trust in God. But just as quickly I'd grab hold of my "Idol-of-the-Day" and cling tightly. I am well acquainted with what are my "Idols," and it's not necessarily material things.

I will strive to perservere. One thing is certain: if God wants to hold onto me, there ain't nothing I can do to get away. If there's one thing that's rock-solid, settled doctrine in my heart it's this: God is never limited by humans.

In the meantime, work on agreeing with everything I say, okay? :-)

* * *

Check this out ... it's my new "personal" website ... care of Comcast:

http://home.comcast.net/~bagwell59

It's still under construction in a lot of places, but it's coming along.

* * *

As "owner" of this blog, do you have a feature where updates result in an e-mail to you?

Struggle

Unfortunately, I am in a mighty struggle right now, evaluating the cost. I am the builder who started a tower, but now realizes I might not have the funds to complete it. (Luke 14:28). What sustains me is the recollection of my commitment.

Don't make any rash decisions! Think of the millions of Christians in the world who are far less dilligent in their seeking of Christ than you are. Yet still they are Christians. Is it true (relatively speaking) that if one wants to follow the letter of The Bible then the Priesthood is the only option - and an unmarried one at that?

Or a missionary, unmarried again?

"In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:33, NIV)

But, is this really necessary, to give up everything and follow Christ? If so we are failing dismally. Your answer to me on this has always been "God needs Bricklayers, Lawyers, Doctors, Computer Specialists .." - has that changed?

I will pray for you in your time of struggle.

Marriage Analogy

Using marriage as an analogy for our commitment to Jesus may not be apt for you at this time, but I think it's a good one overall. Your most recent post raised several thoughts in my mind.

* * *

You wrote:

I believe those parts of The Bible that extoll the values of "til death us do part" are not God's wishes - because He never made us like that.

That's a difficult statement to agree with. For one thing, it's a stretch to say that just because you (or I, or others, or most people) are a given way, that it's the way God made us. By that logic then: I sin, therefore God made me to sin. You seem to ignore another possibility: God did indeed make us to mate for life. But we are fallen creatures, rarely seeking to do our creator's will, always under the spell of sensual temptations. Just because it is difficult to maintain a marriage does not mean it is impossible.

Note: by the way, if I left the impression that Lisa and I have this near-perfect relationship, then I have mislead you. We struggle quite a bit, more than I'd prefer. It's difficult -- very, very difficult -- at times. What keeps me going is my commitment to maintaining it.

But debating whether we "were made" for life-long marriage really isn't the point here. I used it simply as a way of explaining what I think is an important element of the Christian faith, which is an intentional and deliberate commitment to Christ. Marriage is -- or should be -- an intentional and deliberate commitment to another. That was the parallel.

* * *

As for Yoda's statement of where contentment lies ... two points:

1. Part of that is simply re-packaged Buddhism. That's one of the reasons I don't like the Star Wars movies. One is that I think they long ago ceased to be creative movies (like Spielberg and his awful "War of the Worlds"). But second, the underlying message seems to me to be a kind of mixed-bag of philosophies. But in the movie itself there's an inherent contradiction: if we're to "train ourselves to let go of everything you fear to lose," that would include letting go of the hope and dream of the Republic, or whatever the anti-Empire folks in that movie called themselves.
2. The basic premise of that statement is not contradictory to the Christian faith. Jesus himself said more or less the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:19-34 is essentially the message: "Stop clinging so tightly to the things of this earth you think will provide you security or happiness or whatever.") The one thing Christians are expressely told never to let go of is Jesus.

The difference between the Buddhist and Christian perspective on this lies in where one is to place one's hope or trust. For the Buddhist, it's in oneself. For the Christian, it's in Christ.

Make sense does that? :-)

* * *

You wrote:

For me, believing in Jesus is something you do, and there is no going back. No option of divorce.

Jesus himself made clear that there is a "cost" associated with following him. In Luke 14:25-33 he paints the parable picture of how some seek to follow him but after a spell realize the cost is simply too high. "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:33, NIV)

So it would seem that the "something you do" you wrote of is not a casual thing. "Christianity is no mere passive acquiescence in a series of propositions, however true." As John R. W. Stott wrote in Mere Christianity. This is where the parallel with marriage is so apt -- neither is marriage a passive acqiescence.

I'm not questioning your commitment to Christ, nor am I saying that your commitment will not survive like your marriages did not (and don't forget, I too have a divorce in my past). I am simply saying that I believe committing to Jesus is more than "something I do." It is that, surely, but it more than that.

Unfortunately, I am in a mighty struggle right now, evaluating the cost. I am the builder who started a tower, but now realizes I might not have the funds to complete it. (Luke 14:28). What sustains me is the recollection of my commitment. It's the same thing that sustains me in my marriage when I'm infuriated with Lisa.

Divorce

When I used the phrase:

these good God fearing people

about the church goers that is what I really meant. I neither envy or hold them in contempt. God made me different from most (in fact I hold the record of being the only known person on the planet to have both a genetic condition called "Marfan's Syndrome" and cancer.) If you add in the loss of one kidney, God made me different from most. I use physical examples because I believe these are linked to how God made us. Also I ate fruits from the tree of knowledge - and I have been exposed to things that they have not, I could tell that from meetings with those folks.

I, like you, obtain hope from knowing that true geniuses are Christians. But I wonder if Einstein went to a Christian fellowship group and prayed for a smooth extension building for his neighbours house? Somehow I doubt it but I do not know.

+++

Your marriage analogy is interesting but again it's weird, it's like the example of the marines you gave, an unfortunate one for me right at this time. I am wondering what God is telling me?

As you know, I had two marriages, neither of which lasted very long. When I was a child, everything told me that to be in a marriage for life was the condition to be sought. I don't really know many people that are happily married, I am glad that you and Lisa are, but I no longer think that marriage for life is the natural condition. People change. I can see benefits to having a loving family community for the children, but look at our histories, not shining examples of marriage being any better for the children.

I'm not suggesting that people should be bedhopping or not having long term serious and committed relationships, but I don't believe "for life" is now the natural condition. Hopefully until the kids leave home, but who knows? This sounds jaded but it is not. I have spent time thinking about it. I believe those parts of The Bible that extoll the values of "til death us do part" are not God's wishes - because He never made us like that. Time will tell but I think in a few thousand years things will be very different, we are still emotionally maturing as a race. The Bible suggests that abstaining is the best approach, and this certainly leads to less sinning, so is probably what God wants. Then the human race ends (no procreation) and we all go to Heaven. Maybe that is the test?

Yoda tells Anakin that "attachment leads to jealousy" and "the fear of loss is a path to the dark side." That being the case, the proper response is to "train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."

Is this what God is asking of us? I think most people would dismiss this out of hand, but I see something of Job in it, and God is offering that I learn this lesson. Like Job. But I really have learnt it Lord (I have!).

So for me, the example of Earthly matrimony is not a good comparison. For me, believing in Jesus is something you do, and there is no going back. No option of divorce. I probably sound too jaded but I am really very happy with a big smile on my face, life is good, I am alive !!

Meaning of "Commitment"

Hmmm ... I'm not sure what exactly I meant. Now that I think about what you asked, I have to think more about it.

However, on first blush I think the analogy of a marriage is fitting. (And it's probably no coincidence that the Bible makes reference to the church as "the bride of Christ" -- there's a parallel being drawn there, no doubt.)

I'm married to Lisa. When I married here these 13 years ago, the memory of my failed first marriage was still in my mind. So as I approached the notion of marrying Lisa, I was quite overcome with the question of whether I was doing the right thing. I had no way of knowing -- no certainty, as you put it -- that Lisa was "the right" person for me. So naturally I had doubts, as the lack of certainty always implies.

But I made a conscious decision to commit myself to Lisa and the marriage. What that meant was that despite the uncertainty, despite some lingering doubts, I was willfully dedicating myself not only to Lisa, but to the marriage. It was not a trivial undertaking ... I thought long and hard about it before making the commitment.

I think something similar applies to the relationship we are to have with Christ. We are to willfully dedicate ourselves to him, despite uncertainty and despite doubts. That's the commitment I was trying to get at. Does that make sense?

* * *

I understand completely your statement about leaving your home church because you felt the "two-faced shyster." I have similar thoughts. My belief is far, far less than certain. My commitment is far, far less than complete. I struggle mightily, both with doubts (at times) and with obedience (at most times). I'm not convinced in my mind that I've really made the decision to step up to the altar and say, "I do" to Christ, as I did with Lisa. I suspect there's a big part of me that wants very much to remain a "unburdened bachelor" (to stretch my analogy) .

It bothers me to go to church and see people seemingly content with their place in their faith. I'm not sure if it's envy or contempt. Both are sins.

Commitment

You were contrasting the following two statements:

(1) I am committed to belief in Christ as Lord and Saviour, but I'll admit I have doubts

and

(2) I'm just not sure if the claims of Jesus are true. Since I can't be sure, I will withhold commitment.

I'm trying to work out the subtleties of these statements and it's not easy. What do you mean by commitment? Is it possible to believe in Jesus without being "committed to belief in Christ"? If commitment = belief then the word can be substituted in the second sentence above .. so it reads like this:

(2*) I'm just not sure if the claims of Jesus are true. Since I can't be sure, I will withhold belief.

Which kind of makes more sense to me .. but is that what you mean? I don't think it is though because if you try the substitution into the first sentence you get something like:

(1*) I believe in my belief in Christ as Lord and Saviour, but I'll admit I have doubts

Which doesn't make any sense.

Is "belief in something" a binary state? (Either one does believe or one does not believe?). Can it be said that if a person weighs the probability that Jesus exists as anything greater than 50% then that person is said to "believe in Christ"? And coversely if it's less than 50% then that person is said to be an unbeliever. Some folks maintain though that Jesus lived exactly as how The Bible said He lived. And, if they have doubts (see your post) then these people are not being entirely honest with themselves are they? You've heard me make overtones on this before, using words like brainwashing. A repitive way of behaving designed to keep people under some sort of control.

There is no certainty as far as I can see so why hold on to the notion that there is? Admittedly it is comforting to my daughter for her to feel certain about things, and until she grows emotionally I will try to make her feel so - but I keep reminding her that in my opinion the world is not really like that and when she realizes and accepts that fact then life will be less of surprise, less stressful in the long run. I told her the Voltaire quote and she's mulling it over.

+++

Decrying a legal loophole while participating in it? Hmmm, sounds rather two faced. Interesting that you raised this as this was exactly the reason I stopped going to my Christian homegroup. I felt like a two faced shyster and these good God fearing people did not need someone like me in their midst, someone who sees the hand of man all over The Bible. So I left.

I do not feel that I need anyone to feel committed to Christ - just The Lord Himself. He is asking me to Love God and to Love my fellow person, and I really am trying, I don't always get it right.

Engaging in Things One Criticizes

A few years back I remember watching a TV news show on which Sam Donaldson was a host. Sam Donaldson is a very liberal journalist who gained fame back in the 1980's for being the White House reporter unafraid to use his booming voice to shout a question at President Reagan whenever Reagan would return to the White House. Anyway, on this particular TV show Donaldson was decrying various U.S. government subsidies to farmers and ranchers, saying they were essentially handouts to rich farmers and large agri-business firms.

At that point, the conservative panelist pointed out that Donaldson himself owned something like 22,000 acres of ranch land in New Mexico, and that he -- Donaldson -- took advantage of those very subsidies ... the very ones he was decrying earlier.

To that, Donaldson responded with, paraphrasing: "Well, I'm not doing anything illegal. They're tax breaks on the books for anyone eligible to take advantage of."

So here's my question: Is there ever a sensible, logical, rational and ethical argument to be made by those who criticize X while simultaneously taking advantage of X simply because it's legal? Honestly, if you were asked to come up with a cogent defense for Donaldson, what would you have said?

I can't think of good argument. I can think of many based on expediency, convenience or greed. But none where the initial principle remained intact.

Doubt vs. Denial

It strikes me there's a real distinction between:

• I am committed to belief in Christ as Lord and Saviour, but I'll admit I have doubts

and

• I'm just not sure if the claims of Jesus are true. Since I can't be sure, I will withhold commitment.

The distinction, it seems to me, in the intent towards commitment.

Thoughts?

Doubt is Natural

You wrote:

It doesn't fit well with evangelizing The Lord does it? There you believe 100%. No room for doubt. This is my problem with the established Church.

You know what? I'm discovering that uncertainty, doubt and fear is a more common thing than people let on. Even my man R.C. has expressed this in his MP3's. I am beginning to believe that doubt in and of itself is not the issue, but rather how we react to the doubt and whether we dwell on it or let it defeat us.

Faith is not proof -- the Bible more or less says that in several different places. Where proof is not provided, there'll be room for doubt. But when doubt corrodes the faith, then there's a problem.

I don't know what the answer is. Pray for strength?

* * *

It's not the issue of taking money with me that has me concerned, but rather whether I'll be able to maintain the income to provide the support. That's just fear and insecurity speaking. I've got oodles of those two qualities. I should sell my excess on eBay. :-)

No room for doubt

You wrote:

tired and not a little bit frightened at becoming obsolete.

I think the tiredness comes with age. Boy there are sometimes when I can barely get out of bed in the afternoon :-)

Still, unless you are losing brain cells at an accelerated rate I wouldn't worry too much as you are a long way ahead of the pack. See how many digits of pi you can remember today.

I have gone 46 years not really thinking about having a "dependent."

This is a bridge I have yet to cross in terms of parents, but I am delighted to have a daughter, in fact "delighted" is nowhere near the mark. I guess for parents one does what one can in this situation, as for money, you can't take it with ya.

... I am simply afraid to know the truth for fear that it doesn't align with my accepted notion of it."

and

But I suspect I'm not that much different from most people, if they were to be honest.

Me too - but we'd be excommunicated for saying so. It doesn't fit well with evangelizing The Lord does it? There you believe 100%. No room for doubt. This is my problem with the established Church.

Complexity

I was reading another white paper from a "consultant" on the whole SOA thing. What a bunch of gobbly-de-gook: "Process reengineering, business-oriented flexibility, blah, blah ... blah."

Someone is going to have to convince me -- more effectively than they already have -- that this is any different from:

• SAA from the mid-80's
• Client/Server from the early 90's
• The "paperless office" from the mid-late 90's
• The "shining city on the hill" hype of Java when it caught hold in the late 90's
• The breathless projections of "digital convergence"
• The initial projections of ".NET"
• etc.
• etc.
• did I mention, "etc.?"

I'm tired, deep.thought ... tired and not a little bit frightened at becoming obsolete.

I spent last weekend in Michigan, visiting my parents. They're very old, frail, and it's becoming increasingly clear that they'll be counting on me for financial support for the rest of their lives. I have gone 46 years not really thinking about having a "dependent." The convergence of that thought with this crashing wave of new stuff I don't understand has me rattled.

If Proof Were Available

I see the point you're making. It is akin to this:

If a wrapped box were placed in front of me, and in that box was an absolutely failsafe proof of the Truth of only one of today's religions, would I want to open that box?

There's a certain apprehension in that ... I have an enormous amount invested in the "truth" of Christianity. What would happen to my world if I opened that box and the answer written on the card was, "Islam" or "Buddhism?" I'll confess to not knowing for certain what I'd do if faced with that choice.

• On the one hand, there is a certain appeal to knowing for certain, once and for all
• On the other hand, there is considerable fear at finding out I was wrong

Now, that said, the "what if" we're playing here is quite a bit different from the lament I posted earlier. There the scenario would be:

It doesn't matter what the card inside the box says. I don't believe there can be such a thing as "Truth," therefore the card may be right, or it may be wrong. We can't know

What I am saying is: "I accept that the card in the box is factually true. I am simply afraid to know the truth for fear that it doesn't align with my accepted notion of it."

By the way, I don't claim any moral high ground by admitting this. But I suspect I'm not that much different from most people, if they were to be honest.

"Horrendously Complicated"

Your point about IBM's SOA message:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2005/12/14/ibm_soa_message/

Between a rock and a hard place

Given two choices, which would you prefer:

The Islamic Qu'ran to be 100% Absolute Truth with no possibility for Christianity to be Absolutely True, or would you prefer it if some people believed in Christianity and some in Islam?

Notice that I am deliberately not giving you the choice of The King James Bible being 100% Absolute Truth and that everyone believes in Christianity - because clearly you would take this choice!

I'm not sure that this thought experiment makes my point but you're incredibly smart and will work out what I am unable to articulate :-)

Worldviews

First, SOA may be inevitable. And the battle may be between Java and .NET. I suspect when the dust settles it'll be some kind of patched-together hybrid between the two. But it won't stop there because, if my thesis is correct, it can't stop there ... the addiction will insist upon more.

Ever look behind the counter at a McDonalds? They use dumb-terminal technology. That's telling to me. :-)

* * *
I was reading a blog about Narnia, and how to talk to someone unfamiliar with Christianity who has seen Narnia and wonders what the fuss is about. One paragraph out of many said this:

One of the toughest challenges Christians face today when talking about our faith is that so many people do not share our basic worldview. They do not believe in a creator, or in a personal creator, at any rate. Or they do not believe in a strict dichotomy between good and evil. Or they do not believe that there is such a thing as sin. Many people are not prepared to receive the Christian gospel as good news because they simply don't accept the presuppositions (good creation; reality of sin; holiness of God; etc.).

I think this particular author has burdened his main point with too much ... the issue is far, far more fundamental than this. You and I have gone back and forth on this many times. The fundamental difficulty in this age in trying to convince anyone of the merits of Christianity is this:

Few believe there is a singular, ultimate truth

And with that worldview then, by definition, any religion that claims to be "the one true religion" is immediately discounted. Religions that hold as one of their central tenets the absence of any real truth -- new age stuff does this -- fit nicely with this worldview.

If a person holds that no singular, ultimate truth exists, there is no possible way to convince them otherwise. They may come around to believing in a singular truth, but the process will not be due to some logically constructed argument. Logic requires a belief in a guiding set of truths, and I'm not speaking of religious truths here. If at each step in a logical construction the listener leans back on a worldview where "there is no truth," or "all things are relative," then they will naturally resist concluding anything. How is it possible to conclude anything when there is no truth?

Such is the morass we have gotten ourselves into.

Satan must be smiling. It truly is his most clever and dastardly invention to date.

Service Oriented Architecture is inevitable

Sir, I very much enjoyed your last post (Technology is Crack) and it very much resonated with my own views in this area.

With regards to what to chose to avoid becoming a hungry lion, I think "SOA" and "ESB" might be pretty good ideas, maybe not the latter - because that depends on java. But one can certainly implement an SOA entirely in .NET.

I think the real battle in this area is between java and .NET.

I believe that eventually all IT resources will become a set of loosely coupled services.

It's no better than green screens, but then again it still takes the same time to get across London as it did 100 years ago, so I wouldn't expect it any other way.

Technology is Crack

I'm not sure if "crack" is an common slang word in the U.K. and Europe. In the U.S. it's the term used to refer to a certain formulation of cocaine. The term "crack" is often used to refer generically to an something addictive -- "Honey roasted almonds are like crack to me!"

Anyway, the point of my title is this: I am honestly coming to believe that the ever-increasing march towards more complex technological "solutions" is a manifestation of an addiction.

I'm very serious.

What I've not fully settled on is what's driving the addiction. I doubt very much that it's being driven by true business needs. We've had this discussion before: much of what's being developed today was adequately addressed years ago.

I have two theories as to why this is occurring:

1. Technology companies have a need to demonstrate and deliver "new stuff" to maintain an appearance of progress and growth. A rock-solid product that isn't "enhanced" every six months is considered a dead product.
2. I/T departments in customer organizations have a need to generate the perception that new stuff is required so that management doesn't focus its cost-cutting eye on the I/T staff. I like to refer to this as "maintaining the priesthood."

So in a sense it's a two-way addiction -- one side helping feed the other.

I got to thinking about all of this when I received a note this morning inquiring about crafting another workshop to cover "SOA" and "ESB". I thought, "There's no way I can keep up with all this. The rate of introduction is too much." I take some comfort in knowing that some of the smartest people I know are just barely keeping up with the new technology. I think what's happening is that we're being forced to specialize in a slice of the bigger picture ... and hope that somehow we can come together as "slice holders" to address problems with the "bigger picture." I'm unconvinced we'll do that. Certainly not efficiently.

The thing about being forced to specialize that frightens me is that choosing the wrong specialty could mean getting cut out of the herd. And once out, I'd never get back in.

It's akin to the lion hunting the gazelle on the African plain. They pick one and go after it. If they pick right, they have dinner; if they pick wrong and the gazelle gets away, they go hungry.

Croatia

I'm sitting in Zagreb looking out the window - pretty bleak weather. People are talking on the phones, I don't know what they are saying but they throw in the odd English word like "machine" or "WebSphere", it's quite funny !

Was it Voltaire that wrote:

"To those that think, life is a comedy. To those that feel, life is a tradegy".

I guess we are all in that spectrum somewhere.

A Fair Point

You're right. Though I'm no expert on Karl Marx's original political/economic theory, I think it can be safely said that in his mind he did not envision it resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions. That was a case of the original message being corrupted for another use.

That would be the common defense of religion or Christianity -- harm done in the name of the religion is a corruption of the original message.

Okay, fair enough. Allow me to withdraw my original complaint about Marxism and ask the question not as a negative, but as a positive:

Compare the positive things accomplished due to Marxism and the positive things accomplished due to Christianity.

The list of positive things accomplished due to Christianity is impressive: vast quantities of art; the energy behind the abolition of slavery in the 1800's; the Red Cross; the Salvation Army; countless charities, etc., etc.

Marxism?

Some might argue that "true Marxism" has never been properly tested ... that it is not proper to ask for examples of success since what Marx had in mind has been corrupted in every instance of its application. To that I would respond: what does that say about Marxism itself?

I stand by my original point, which is: any poll that returns Karl Marx as the #1 philosopher of all time is simply absurd. It's a sure sign that a bunch of lefty moon-bats hit the site and voted for Marx based on some dreamy notion of some political-economic nirvana right around the corner.

It would be akin to a poll that listed C. S. Lewis as the #1 author of literature in the second millenium. If that were the result, one would naturally expect the poll to have been hammered by a bunch of Christian right-wingers.

Note: but not really ... true Christian right-wingers hate C. S. Lewis. They consider him the anti-Christ. Honestly ... do a Google search of C. S. Lewis and some negative word like "objections" or "apostasy" or something like that. The really off-the-scale right-wingers think Lewis was a thinly-veiled Catholic bordering on paganism. ;-)

* * *

As for Jesus and the human/divine issue: nope, sorry ... I won't go there. Too mysterious. In theological terms that's referred to as the hypostatic union. Jesus was simultaneous all-man and all-God, not man at one point and God at another, not half-man and half-God, but at any given time fully man and fully divine. Or so it is believed. This issue was forced on the early church in -- I think -- the 3rd century.

For my part, I simply accept that Jesus was both man and God in some mysterious way. Then I think to myself: "Bagwell, you're struggling to obey at the most basic level ... what makes you think pondering this deep mystery is anything other than an act of procrastination?" :-)

A slice of infinity

If God has infinite knowledge then would any subdivision of that knowledge also be infinite? That is the nature of infinity right? (eg. infinity + 1 = infinity, infinity/2 = infinity and so forth). So if Jesus had any part of the infinite knowledge of God then he would have had infinite knowledge himself, therefore I agree - no contest, he was the smartest person who ever lived (and the smartest who will ever live). Amazing that He bothered with Earth at all. This may also mean that when He asked why He had been forsaken, He really knew the answer and it must have been a rhetorical question - presumably for our benefit.

If God does not have infinite knowledge ( not something I am willing to accept!) then it is possible that Jesus may not have had infinite knowledge.

You wrote:

... and the consequences wrought by him (Marx) have led to the death of tens of millions.

I've actually heard similar arguments given against religion, and against Jesus. The usual religious response is to say that people would have found some way to kill each other regardless of religion, regardless of Jesus or of Mohammed. I think that argument could be equally applied to the religion that Marx taught too, could it not?

Smartest Human Ever

Dallas Willard -- a professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California, and a noted Christian author and speaker -- asserts that above all other brilliant people who ever was, one stands out: Jesus.

Now, we can get into the weeds really quickly about how much knowledge from Christ's divine nature was present in his human nature. We know some was -- examples: he knew the woman at the well had five husbands and was living with another; he sees through Nathanael's initial skepticism about Jesus as the messiah.

If we grant the human nature of Jesus full possession of God's knowledge, then it's no contest.

I'm not really sure I'm up to arguing the case pro or con ... I just toss it out there for consideration.

Karl Marx?

I count as suspect any poll that ends up listing Karl Marx as its "Greatest Philosopher." Marx was certainly influential, but not in a lasting way, and certainly not in a good way. His theory turned out to be a failure, and the consequences wrought by him have led to the death of tens of millions.

I don't know about the other ones. I've heard of them, but I don't really know much about their philosophy or their impact.

* * *
I could never do the chemical equation stuff. Never. I could do physics and math, but not chemistry.

World's Hardest Equation

You're going for the household names I see !

For science I would have to add:

Pythagoras
Whoever invented the wheel
Whoever invented the abacus

Art/Science crossover:

Leonardo Da Vinci

B-List genii : Euler, Hawking, Ramanujan, Aristotle, Archimedes, Alexander The Great, Lennon & McCartney (together), Penrose, Bagwell

BBC radio 4 had a recent poll for the greatest philosopher of all time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_result.shtml

To test your genius, apparently this is the worlds hardest equation to balance

? H2 + ? Ca(CN)2 + ? NaAlF4 + ? FeSO4 + ? MgSiO3 + ? KI + ? H3PO4 + ? PbCrO4 + ? BrCl + ? CF2Cl2 + ? SO2 -> ? PbBr2 + ? CrCl3 + ? MgCO3 + ? KAl(OH)4 + ? Fe(SCN)3 + ? PI3 + ? Na2SiO3 + ? CaF2 + ? H2O

It can be done apparently - what's the answer?

Geniuses

Okay, along those lines ... who are some bona fide "geniuses" throughout history?

Science

• Galileo
• Newton
• Einstein
• ???

Art

• Michelangelo
• Rembrandt
• ???

Music

• Bach
• Beethoven
• Mozart
• ???

Philosophy/Thought

• ???

Genius?

Good golly, no.

That said, I will confess I have been blessed with certain gifts in some areas.

But genius? That's a lofty perch.

Not me. Honestly -- no false modesty -- no.

Genius

Honest question to you, bar the upbringing (sans Tom Brown's school days and Flashman) .. do you think that you are a genius? Here is what John Lennon said when asked during the Rolling Stone interview:

Do you think you're a genius?

Yes, if there is such a thing as one, I am one.

People like me are aware of their so-called genius at ten, eight, nine. . . . I always wondered, ``Why has nobody discovered me?'' In school, didn't they see that I'm cleverer than anybody in this school? That the teachers are stupid, too? That all they had was information that I didn't need? I got f*****' lost in being at high school. I used to say to me auntie, ``You throw my f*****' poetry out, and you'll regret it when I'm famous, '' and she threw the b****rd stuff out. I never forgave her for not treating me like a f*****' genius or whatever I was, when I was a child. It was obvious to me. Why didn't they put me in art school? Why didn't they train me? Why would they keep forcing me to be a f******' cowboy like the rest of them? I was different, I was always different. Why didn't anybody notice me? A couple of teachers would notice me, encourage me to be something or other, to draw or to paint - express myself. But most of the time they were trying to beat me into being a f******' dentist or a teacher. And then the f*****' fans tried to beat me into being a f*****' Beatle or an Engelbert Humperdinck, and the critics tried to beat me into being Paul McCartney.

++++

I just wondered - I am certainly not a genius. Perhaps a Salieri to your Mozart pal.

I hope all went well in the Big Apple for ya, rest in peace John Winston Lennon, I guess I would have stopped by Strawberry Fields today had I been there.

The IQ Virus

You have multiple of those genes, pal ... :-)

* * *
I think intelligence is fundamentally genetic, but can be hindered or fostered based on upbringing. There's no question in my mind that I am stymied due to the relatively poor education I received. Had I been raised in a good old-fashioned English boarding school of the 1930's, where I would learn the classics as well as get buggered senseless each day, I'd be a completely different person today.

* * *
Cool news about the reovirus. They'd better be darn certain that virus can't "go rogue" and start attacking normal cells.

What's amusing is that there are people who will applaud this development, yet lament genetically modified corn. The distinction between the two, in terms of "human hands altering the design of nature," is not that great.

* * *
Last day in NYC ... say goodbye to the Big Apple.

Low IQ Gene

I could have weeks of fun following the links on the Death Star site, thanks - I think :-)

+++

If only I didn't have this gene variant - I could have been a genius:

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/105238

Question: Are most of us born with the capability to be roughly equal in intelligence? Is intelligence predominantly geno- or phenotypical?

+++

Reovirus: good to know about. God bless the canucks! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/213203.stm (1998) and http://www.medadnews.com/News/Index.cfm?articleid=296062 (Dec 5 2005)

Just 'Cuz I Like You

Here you go:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/death-star.htm

Say goodbye to your day.

Why?

So by infinitely re-arranging the combinations of Y-H-W-H we get a repeating pattern of "Why?" Is that:

• Us asking God "Why?"
• Or God asking us "Why?"

:-)

Why in the name of God?

Yes, the rendering of trust being evil, I can see that. The person kicking the dog: a clear of example of someone treating another living creature in a way that they themselves would not wish to be treated - regardless of religion. He will of course get judged one day. (Maybe he got judged already - did you already blow him away with a magnum 44 in a "Go ahead make my day, punk" fashion?) What a ***hole.

+++

I just made something up, well I've never seen it before anywhere. I was considering your post entitled "No purpose" and got to thinking why? Why are we are here etc? Doodling on a piece of paper I got

Whywhywhywhywhy ...

I imagined for a brief moment that I saw YHWH in there! Then I drew this grid to read YHWH across the top and YHWH down the side ..


YHWH
HYHW
WHYH
HWHY

If you make the grid infinitely large -- reading forwards and backwarks, downwards and upwards, there are your why's. There is no escape.

QED.

:-)

Deliberately Abusing Trust

That's how I would define "evil." To me, the act of extending trust is one of the most precious things a human can do. Therefore, when someone deliberately violates that trust -- and particularly if they violate it with malice -- that is evil.

This is made worse when the trust is extended not by free choice, but by necessity. For example, a young child must trust its parent to survive. For the parent to then deliberately abuse that trust is harmful not just in the obvious way, but doubly so because the violated child is placed in a truly horrible position: having to choose between trusting and dying.

Another example of this is something I witnessed once in North Carolina. A man was viciously kicking a chained-up dog. The dog was yelping pitifully, and trying its best to get away from the abuse. But of course it could not. The dog was helpless.

Trust, once extended and violated, creates a wound that can almost never heal.

Defining Evil

Hard one, you alluded to "one man's meat is another man's gravy" - yes evil appears to be relative.

You asked what is the most beautiful thing I ever saw, well now I am thinking, what is the most evil thing I ever saw.

I guess it's tied up with

Lying
Being unkind to children
Corrupting innocence
Expecting more from others than you're willing to give yourself
Getting enjoyment out of anothers pain

..

Hmm, what is the most evil thing that you have ever experienced?

Google and Evil

I didn't know that was Google's motto. That's a very, very odd motto for a corporation to possess. It's odd on two levels:

1. The word "evil" is a negative term -- and usually corporate mottos try to be postitive. Even though they try to negate it (with the "Don't be" preface), the tenor of the motto itself is eerily negative.
2. The term "evil" is a poorly defined term. First, it requires one to accept that evil exists (as you point out), and nowadays that's not a popular notion. And second, it's possible (and very likely) that different people have different notions of evil. And to equate a corporation of "yes men" as "evil" seems very odd.

I'm with you -- if the sentiment behind the logo is more along the lines of "Be Considerate of Others," then it's laudible. But even that would be met with suspicion as it sounds so hokey. But saying, "Don't be Evil" simply carries an odd, odd cast to it.

Care to take a stab at a definition for "evil?"