A man approaches a house at 11:59pm with the full intent of robbing the house.
At 12:01am he breaks into the house and performs the robbery.
Question: was the man a thief at 11:59am?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Reality and Happiness
But it's scary to think that reality should be based on our intuition.
I think the question is whether the "models we construct for the Universe" alter or create the reality. Reality may be what it is, and our intuitive construction of the models may have nothing at all to do with it. There was a time when humans believed atoms were the smallest unit of matter. That was their model. The reality was -- and is -- quite different.
I've long held that our view of "reality" is partial at best, and we'll never know the fullness of it.
* * *
It's just a wonderful thing that you and your daughter have found a space in which to be happy and to start to grow again. The turn of events that allowed this seemed so improbable just a short year or so ago.
Good for you, young man. Good for you!
I think the question is whether the "models we construct for the Universe" alter or create the reality. Reality may be what it is, and our intuitive construction of the models may have nothing at all to do with it. There was a time when humans believed atoms were the smallest unit of matter. That was their model. The reality was -- and is -- quite different.
I've long held that our view of "reality" is partial at best, and we'll never know the fullness of it.
* * *
It's just a wonderful thing that you and your daughter have found a space in which to be happy and to start to grow again. The turn of events that allowed this seemed so improbable just a short year or so ago.
Good for you, young man. Good for you!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Intuitively appealing
I think that they can in fact stipulate whatever they please. But intuitively unappealing axioms cast a suspect light on the results, right?
I think you are correct. But it's scary to think that reality should be based on 0ur intuition. Really scary. Because it means that whatever rules we find for the universe are based entirely upon our perception of it rather that how it actually is. If it "is" anything. We get back to totalitarian existentialism and truth is relative.
If the models we construct for the Universe are based on intuition then, I mean, is your intuition the same as my intuition? Those parallel lines may well cross (perhaps though gravitational distortion) - like an ant walking - apparently always - in a "straight line" on the surface of a sphere.
Very scary indeed!
+++
This is a problem for me because I have a heightened sense of needing to feel worthwhile.
It's a pity more people didn't have some of this attribute, but too much of it will just depress you I can see that. God made you just as you are so enjoy how he made you? I agree with you about the "illusion of productivity" - nice phrase. If you really look at the value that most folks make to the bottom line it is nine times out of ten equal to zero and often counter-productive. What to do though? Well the only people we can modify the behavior of is ourselves really, so let's make sure we try to avoid this illusion. For me I find that it takes a watchful eye on what I get involved in.
+++
I am happy my friend and my daughter is happy too. We are both really happy. She's even putting on a little weight. In the car yesterday I looked for the traffic in the rear view mirror and caught myself, my reflection looked relaxed and happy - a shock - something I have not seen for years! Thank you God for answering our prayers. No matter what happens, I have known real happiness and I am very very grateful for that.
I think you are correct. But it's scary to think that reality should be based on 0ur intuition. Really scary. Because it means that whatever rules we find for the universe are based entirely upon our perception of it rather that how it actually is. If it "is" anything. We get back to totalitarian existentialism and truth is relative.
If the models we construct for the Universe are based on intuition then, I mean, is your intuition the same as my intuition? Those parallel lines may well cross (perhaps though gravitational distortion) - like an ant walking - apparently always - in a "straight line" on the surface of a sphere.
Very scary indeed!
+++
This is a problem for me because I have a heightened sense of needing to feel worthwhile.
It's a pity more people didn't have some of this attribute, but too much of it will just depress you I can see that. God made you just as you are so enjoy how he made you? I agree with you about the "illusion of productivity" - nice phrase. If you really look at the value that most folks make to the bottom line it is nine times out of ten equal to zero and often counter-productive. What to do though? Well the only people we can modify the behavior of is ourselves really, so let's make sure we try to avoid this illusion. For me I find that it takes a watchful eye on what I get involved in.
+++
I am happy my friend and my daughter is happy too. We are both really happy. She's even putting on a little weight. In the car yesterday I looked for the traffic in the rear view mirror and caught myself, my reflection looked relaxed and happy - a shock - something I have not seen for years! Thank you God for answering our prayers. No matter what happens, I have known real happiness and I am very very grateful for that.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Illusion of Productivity
This week I'm back in G'burg. I've come to understand something about the difference between working at a centralized office and working by myself at home. Aside from the differences in social interactions -- which are important -- working in a centralized office affords one to cling to an illusion of being productive. The act of walking around -- going to the printer, going to the restroom, just being seen -- can create a sense that "I'm doing something." Working at home I find no such thing.
This is a problem for me because I have a heightened sense of needing to feel worthwhile. Here in G'burg I'm doing no more or less than I do at home. But I feel as if I am, and therefore there's a better sense about me. At home, I develop a sense of agitation unless I am furiously slaving away at something.
I'm a sick, sick man. I am indeed. :-)
This is a problem for me because I have a heightened sense of needing to feel worthwhile. Here in G'burg I'm doing no more or less than I do at home. But I feel as if I am, and therefore there's a better sense about me. At home, I develop a sense of agitation unless I am furiously slaving away at something.
I'm a sick, sick man. I am indeed. :-)
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Reality Within the Axiomatic Boundaries
Axiom set A could mandate that (X*Y)+Z is not equal to X*(Y+Z) but axiom set B could make mandate that (X*Y)+Z is equal to X*(Y+Z).
I would think that by definition each is true, within each axiom's "universe." The two are not contradictory, unless it's stipulated further that the two sets represent a union ... then we have a problem.
But I think there are certain "universal" axioms that apply to subordinate axioms, right? Can a mathematician stipulate that two parallel lines on a plane do in fact cross?
Note: From Wikipedia definition of "Euclidian" -- "The method consists of assuming a small set of intuitively appealing axioms, and then proving many other propositions from those axioms." I find it interesting that it doesn't say something like "irrefutable" or "obvious." I like that phrase: intuitively appealing.
I think that they can in fact stipulate whatever they please. But intuitively unappealing axioms cast a suspect light on the results, right?
I would think that by definition each is true, within each axiom's "universe." The two are not contradictory, unless it's stipulated further that the two sets represent a union ... then we have a problem.
But I think there are certain "universal" axioms that apply to subordinate axioms, right? Can a mathematician stipulate that two parallel lines on a plane do in fact cross?
Note: From Wikipedia definition of "Euclidian" -- "The method consists of assuming a small set of intuitively appealing axioms, and then proving many other propositions from those axioms." I find it interesting that it doesn't say something like "irrefutable" or "obvious." I like that phrase: intuitively appealing.
I think that they can in fact stipulate whatever they please. But intuitively unappealing axioms cast a suspect light on the results, right?
Parallel Universe?
Does it matter on what one thinks?
Yes I think so -- because one can think sinful thoughts and these are equivalent to actually committing the sin. Wages of death ensue.
Can it be said that the first axiom is mutually exclusive of the second? Or that two are simply different, but not contradictory.
Interesting question which I am not sure I know the answer to. I mean, axiom set A could mandate that (X*Y)+Z is not equal to X*(Y+Z) but axiom set B could make mandate that (X*Y)+Z is equal to X*(Y+Z). Are these axioms in contradiction or just different? I'm not sure, I would suspect the latter. What do you think buddy?
Yes I think so -- because one can think sinful thoughts and these are equivalent to actually committing the sin. Wages of death ensue.
Can it be said that the first axiom is mutually exclusive of the second? Or that two are simply different, but not contradictory.
Interesting question which I am not sure I know the answer to. I mean, axiom set A could mandate that (X*Y)+Z is not equal to X*(Y+Z) but axiom set B could make mandate that (X*Y)+Z is equal to X*(Y+Z). Are these axioms in contradiction or just different? I'm not sure, I would suspect the latter. What do you think buddy?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Axiomatically
Bertrand Russell alledgedly said
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
Would that match your knowledge of the Gospels?
The statement is essentially correct. What goes unsaid in that quote is that the purpose of the Gospels was never to glorify human intelligence. But it does not follow that Christianity is therefore a faith unsupported by intelligence. Nor that intelligent people can't possibly believe in Jesus Christ.
However, I believe it is true that with intelligence often comes pride. Not always, but often. And a prideful heart isn't generally inclined to accept the message of the Gospels.
But this is thinking. And thinking can get one into trouble.
It can, I agree. Overthinking surely can. Does it matter on what one thinks?
By a circuitous route we have come straight back to superposition of states, where two seemingly conflicting things can both be true simultaneously -- and by induction we arrive once more at the struggle of how to define truth.
Yep, and I won't run down that rabbit hole again. I agree that it's nearly impossible define truth. What I've always maintained is that there does exist a singular objective truth, which is God himself. But I've always held that proposition can't itself be proven.
Mathematics (and chess too) is based on a set of rules (axioms) and within those axioms you can be sure that it's X or Y.
But only by virtue of definition, right? A mathematician may stipulate an axiom that defined only X and Y. But that "reality" only exists within the realm of that definition. Another mathematician may stipulate X, Y and Z. It too only exists within the realm of that definition. Can it be said that the first axiom is mutually exclusive of the second? Or that two are simply different, but not contradictory.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
Would that match your knowledge of the Gospels?
The statement is essentially correct. What goes unsaid in that quote is that the purpose of the Gospels was never to glorify human intelligence. But it does not follow that Christianity is therefore a faith unsupported by intelligence. Nor that intelligent people can't possibly believe in Jesus Christ.
However, I believe it is true that with intelligence often comes pride. Not always, but often. And a prideful heart isn't generally inclined to accept the message of the Gospels.
But this is thinking. And thinking can get one into trouble.
It can, I agree. Overthinking surely can. Does it matter on what one thinks?
By a circuitous route we have come straight back to superposition of states, where two seemingly conflicting things can both be true simultaneously -- and by induction we arrive once more at the struggle of how to define truth.
Yep, and I won't run down that rabbit hole again. I agree that it's nearly impossible define truth. What I've always maintained is that there does exist a singular objective truth, which is God himself. But I've always held that proposition can't itself be proven.
Mathematics (and chess too) is based on a set of rules (axioms) and within those axioms you can be sure that it's X or Y.
But only by virtue of definition, right? A mathematician may stipulate an axiom that defined only X and Y. But that "reality" only exists within the realm of that definition. Another mathematician may stipulate X, Y and Z. It too only exists within the realm of that definition. Can it be said that the first axiom is mutually exclusive of the second? Or that two are simply different, but not contradictory.
Deja Vu
If you have a problem with all four of them, are you then suggesting that it is invalid to suggest a limited set of alternatives when there is always the possibility that other options exist ... even ones we do not yet know about?
Yes I guess I do have a problem with all four of them - but not in an everyday sense. In the everyday social world I would pick one, or be happy with all of them.
But when I look deeply I am fundamentally unhappy with all of them.
And I think that you've put your finger on it, there are always other options that we don't know about (in addition to the obvious guesses we can make that aren't listed, as per the workers discontent at working the whole day for the same pay as a fellow who had only worked one hour for example).
I think this is why I am drawn to mathematics (or "math" as I believe some of you colonials refer to it as). Mathematics (and chess too) is based on a set of rules (axioms) and within those axioms you can be sure that it's X or Y. But the "real world" isn't like this, it is grey, not black and white.
And I don't just mean that in a "the world is complex" sense, I mean that in the "we have measured it to be fuzzy" sense. Humans cannot pin down reality.
By a circuitous route we have come straight back to superposition of states, where two seemingly conflicting things can both be true simultaneously -- and by induction we arrive once more at the struggle of how to define truth.
I am not sure what this means but it's interesting!
But this is thinking. And thinking can get one into trouble.
Bertrand Russell alledgedly said
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
Would that match your knowledge of the Gospels?
Yes I guess I do have a problem with all four of them - but not in an everyday sense. In the everyday social world I would pick one, or be happy with all of them.
But when I look deeply I am fundamentally unhappy with all of them.
And I think that you've put your finger on it, there are always other options that we don't know about (in addition to the obvious guesses we can make that aren't listed, as per the workers discontent at working the whole day for the same pay as a fellow who had only worked one hour for example).
I think this is why I am drawn to mathematics (or "math" as I believe some of you colonials refer to it as). Mathematics (and chess too) is based on a set of rules (axioms) and within those axioms you can be sure that it's X or Y. But the "real world" isn't like this, it is grey, not black and white.
And I don't just mean that in a "the world is complex" sense, I mean that in the "we have measured it to be fuzzy" sense. Humans cannot pin down reality.
By a circuitous route we have come straight back to superposition of states, where two seemingly conflicting things can both be true simultaneously -- and by induction we arrive once more at the struggle of how to define truth.
I am not sure what this means but it's interesting!
But this is thinking. And thinking can get one into trouble.
Bertrand Russell alledgedly said
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
Would that match your knowledge of the Gospels?
Objection! Leading the Witness!
Do you see where I am coming from on this? Forcing people down an alley in their answer.
Let me pose four scenarios:
You seem to indicate that making a declarative statement is okay, since it's then up to the listener to believe it or not ("Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6, KJV). Jesus never asked anyone to choose between alternatives. I'd gather you'd be okay with the declarative portion of #1, but not the question posed later?
If you have a problem with all four of them, are you then suggesting that it is invalid to suggest a limited set of alternatives when there is always the possibility that other options exist ... even ones we do not yet know about?
Let me pose four scenarios:
- "There are two choices: X and Y. Which of the two do you prefer?"
- "I believe there are two choices: X and Y. Which of the two do you prefer?"
- "Others have said there are two choices: X and Y. Which of the two do you prefer?"
- "For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume two choices: X and Y. Which of the two do you prefer?"
You seem to indicate that making a declarative statement is okay, since it's then up to the listener to believe it or not ("Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6, KJV). Jesus never asked anyone to choose between alternatives. I'd gather you'd be okay with the declarative portion of #1, but not the question posed later?
If you have a problem with all four of them, are you then suggesting that it is invalid to suggest a limited set of alternatives when there is always the possibility that other options exist ... even ones we do not yet know about?
Monday, January 22, 2007
Control
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
This is fine, one can choose to believe it or not.
If Jesus had said to a third person, "Do you believe that I am the way, the truth or the light?" then that would be a Lewis-ism. There is no way out, no option that says "Hey, I believe none of those".
Do you see where I am coming from on this? Forcing people down an alley in their answer.
This is fine, one can choose to believe it or not.
If Jesus had said to a third person, "Do you believe that I am the way, the truth or the light?" then that would be a Lewis-ism. There is no way out, no option that says "Hey, I believe none of those".
Do you see where I am coming from on this? Forcing people down an alley in their answer.
"Self-Evidently Incomplete"
I look at all the available evidence and come up with an "on balance of probability" statement that I can accept.
Plus, Matthew 20:1-16 is a parable ... Jesus is using it to make a larger point he wished to make at that time. The fact that you are able to posit alternative reasons for the made-up workers' discontent does not mean Jesus was trying to be "self evidently incomplete."
If you believe Matthew 20:1-16 is an unreliable representation of what Jesus said based on your self-detected "Lewis-ism," then I would imagine you should have also rejected John 14:6:
- You accepted: John 14:6 (King James Version)
- You rejected: Matthew 20:1-16
Plus, Matthew 20:1-16 is a parable ... Jesus is using it to make a larger point he wished to make at that time. The fact that you are able to posit alternative reasons for the made-up workers' discontent does not mean Jesus was trying to be "self evidently incomplete."
If you believe Matthew 20:1-16 is an unreliable representation of what Jesus said based on your self-detected "Lewis-ism," then I would imagine you should have also rejected John 14:6:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by meProblems:
- The "way, the truth, and the life" is an incomplete list. There are other things he may be.
- "No man cometh" is a statement of certainty in an uncertain world
Misdirection
If you wish to claim some passages as reliable and others suspect, what do you use to decide which is which?
Similar to a way a human judge in a Court works, I look at all the available evidence and come up with an "on balance of probability" statement that I can accept.
Clearly some statements cannot be proved or disproved, so these are more likely to be believed on face value than not, by me. Some other statements, such as Lewis-isms, are self-evidently incomplete, in my opinion.
If someone tells you that there are two colors and two colors only you know that they are not telling you what you have measured with your own senses don't you? Maybe they are just blinded to the other colors and are telling as much of the way it is as they know, or maybe they have a hidden agenda? If it is the latter then what could that hidden agenda be?
For what the hidden agenda is, Lewis might say "It could be (X) or it could be (Y) - which do you think?" So the recipient of the Lewis-ism goes down the path of X or Y, falling into the trap laid down by Lewis. It could be that the agenda is (Z) - couldn't it?
Maybe not "false choices", but certainly "incomplete choices".
I first came across this blatant steering when I read "Mere Christianity", which is why I refer to it as a Lewis-ism. But since then, I have noticed that many who assume a position of power do this and that it is one of the chief mechanisms used by senior people on their subordinates. Just an observation.
Similar to a way a human judge in a Court works, I look at all the available evidence and come up with an "on balance of probability" statement that I can accept.
Clearly some statements cannot be proved or disproved, so these are more likely to be believed on face value than not, by me. Some other statements, such as Lewis-isms, are self-evidently incomplete, in my opinion.
If someone tells you that there are two colors and two colors only you know that they are not telling you what you have measured with your own senses don't you? Maybe they are just blinded to the other colors and are telling as much of the way it is as they know, or maybe they have a hidden agenda? If it is the latter then what could that hidden agenda be?
For what the hidden agenda is, Lewis might say "It could be (X) or it could be (Y) - which do you think?" So the recipient of the Lewis-ism goes down the path of X or Y, falling into the trap laid down by Lewis. It could be that the agenda is (Z) - couldn't it?
Maybe not "false choices", but certainly "incomplete choices".
I first came across this blatant steering when I read "Mere Christianity", which is why I refer to it as a Lewis-ism. But since then, I have noticed that many who assume a position of power do this and that it is one of the chief mechanisms used by senior people on their subordinates. Just an observation.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Inconsistencies
We don't know that Jesus said it do we?
Well for starters:
If you wish to claim some passages as reliable and others suspect, what do you use to decide which is which?
Well for starters:
John 14:6 (King James Version)Which is it? Is the Bible a reliable or unreliable witness to what Jesus said?
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
If you wish to claim some passages as reliable and others suspect, what do you use to decide which is which?
Fait accomplis
- How is someting Jesus said a "Lewis-ism?"
- How do you know your interpretation is correct?
"I will only present a limited number of options to you in the hope that you pick one, or at least feel some compulsion to pick one, thus closing the debate down to the topics of my chosing".
I refer to such a passage as a Lewis-ism. No temporal causality implied!
2. I don't, and I apologize for making it look it is. But it might be. The very fact that I can posit alternatives to the two choices given at all shows that the two choices given are not enough, doesn't it?
Lewis-isms
The response given by the landowner is:
(a) Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or (b) are you envious because I am generous?'
Now isn't this a classic case of Lewis-ism? Ie, providing two possible solutions to a question where there are more than two solutions.
The workers are grumbling because they wished they had only worked a short time rather than the whole day.
Questions:
(a) Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or (b) are you envious because I am generous?'
Now isn't this a classic case of Lewis-ism? Ie, providing two possible solutions to a question where there are more than two solutions.
The workers are grumbling because they wished they had only worked a short time rather than the whole day.
Questions:
- How is someting Jesus said a "Lewis-ism?"
- How do you know your interpretation is correct?
Socialized synapses
When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner
The response given by the landowner is:
(a) Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or (b) are you envious because I am generous?'
Now isn't this a classic case of Lewis-ism? Ie, providing two possible solutions to a question where there are more than two solutions.
The workers are grumbling because they wished they had only worked a short time rather than the whole day. Why did they wish this? Perhaps during that time they could have done other work, thus being paid net more for the day? Or enjoyed some leisure time with their friends?
Perhaps they are also grumbling because -- being creatures formed through natural selection -- they are compelled to try to obtain some advantage over their fellow man, and in this case they have done the opposite, their fellow men - who worked only a little - got an advantage over them.
I think the answer given in this parable is strongly suggesting (to me anyway) that we deny those feelings of "get one up on our fellow man" -- that answer leads to an excellent lesson for all of us. It's in total harmony with the Golden Rule and the second commandment of the New Covenant. I constantly get the feeling that Jesus is trying to tell us to use the socialized mind to override the body, in some sense.
We already have instinctual synapses from birth but our education forms new synapses, pathways in the brain. Do you feel that Jesus is recommending to us that we follow the impulses from the socialized synapses rather than the instinctual ones? I get that feeling a lot of the time. It's a balance, some complex interplay going on in the brain.
+++
Because what I'm finding is that for all the intellectual fun I might have debating some theological point, the truth is I'm not coming closer to Christ himself in the process.
This is a "spiritual" (whatever that is) process. It's emotional in root and in my opinion for this journey you either need hard evidence (like I feel I have) or many years of conditioning your synapses so that absolute belief becomes the norm. My only advice is to look for the evidence, pray and keep an open mind.
For me, there's something else ... some other calling for me. One that doesn't draw me close to the as-yet-untransformed parts of my heart that is ruled by pride, arrogance, fear and insecurity.
These parts of your heart are parts of your brain in reality as you know. And the emotions there are shaped by structures in the brain that can be reshaped through exercising your brain in other directions. This has been shown in pictures taken of the synapses in the brain. Brainwashing will work, it's close to proven through direct observation of the brain.
So have you had any revelation about your other calling? At one point you were considering Pastor-hood?
You can't imagine -- you simply can't imagine -- how much I yearn to drop my sword and shield and really come unto Him to find rest.
This will happen upon your death - I hope that you don't want to die .. be careful for what you wish for pal!
Life is good. We have been given this precious, fleeting ... gift. I have seen people in the cancer ward die early. It's sad. Life should be prolonged as long as possible in my opinion.
If you want to 100% believe in Christ in this life then I believe that you need to do some serious brain reprogramming, which is possible, or go find The Living Christ, He is there, and I really don't think you'll find him in a Church, but that doesn't mean He is not there in The Church, just my warped view of religions probably.
Who was it that said "God is spirit and religion is politics"? I can't find it on Google but I didn't make it up either.
The response given by the landowner is:
(a) Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or (b) are you envious because I am generous?'
Now isn't this a classic case of Lewis-ism? Ie, providing two possible solutions to a question where there are more than two solutions.
The workers are grumbling because they wished they had only worked a short time rather than the whole day. Why did they wish this? Perhaps during that time they could have done other work, thus being paid net more for the day? Or enjoyed some leisure time with their friends?
Perhaps they are also grumbling because -- being creatures formed through natural selection -- they are compelled to try to obtain some advantage over their fellow man, and in this case they have done the opposite, their fellow men - who worked only a little - got an advantage over them.
I think the answer given in this parable is strongly suggesting (to me anyway) that we deny those feelings of "get one up on our fellow man" -- that answer leads to an excellent lesson for all of us. It's in total harmony with the Golden Rule and the second commandment of the New Covenant. I constantly get the feeling that Jesus is trying to tell us to use the socialized mind to override the body, in some sense.
We already have instinctual synapses from birth but our education forms new synapses, pathways in the brain. Do you feel that Jesus is recommending to us that we follow the impulses from the socialized synapses rather than the instinctual ones? I get that feeling a lot of the time. It's a balance, some complex interplay going on in the brain.
+++
Because what I'm finding is that for all the intellectual fun I might have debating some theological point, the truth is I'm not coming closer to Christ himself in the process.
This is a "spiritual" (whatever that is) process. It's emotional in root and in my opinion for this journey you either need hard evidence (like I feel I have) or many years of conditioning your synapses so that absolute belief becomes the norm. My only advice is to look for the evidence, pray and keep an open mind.
For me, there's something else ... some other calling for me. One that doesn't draw me close to the as-yet-untransformed parts of my heart that is ruled by pride, arrogance, fear and insecurity.
These parts of your heart are parts of your brain in reality as you know. And the emotions there are shaped by structures in the brain that can be reshaped through exercising your brain in other directions. This has been shown in pictures taken of the synapses in the brain. Brainwashing will work, it's close to proven through direct observation of the brain.
So have you had any revelation about your other calling? At one point you were considering Pastor-hood?
You can't imagine -- you simply can't imagine -- how much I yearn to drop my sword and shield and really come unto Him to find rest.
This will happen upon your death - I hope that you don't want to die .. be careful for what you wish for pal!
Life is good. We have been given this precious, fleeting ... gift. I have seen people in the cancer ward die early. It's sad. Life should be prolonged as long as possible in my opinion.
If you want to 100% believe in Christ in this life then I believe that you need to do some serious brain reprogramming, which is possible, or go find The Living Christ, He is there, and I really don't think you'll find him in a Church, but that doesn't mean He is not there in The Church, just my warped view of religions probably.
Who was it that said "God is spirit and religion is politics"? I can't find it on Google but I didn't make it up either.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Chances
In that case, if the Muslim still rejects Jesus then he goes to eternal damnation. Alternatively if the Muslim does accept Jesus then all the mosque-work done throughout the life of the Muslim is put aside with an "ok you were unlucky to be born in downtown Baghdad but at least in the end you made the right decision, you may enter".
Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. But would you agree it's a possibility? There's a hint of something along these lines in the parable offered in Matthew 20:1-16:
* * *
John 14:6 (King James Version)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
That's what it says. What does that mean? Is there potential latitude in the possible interpretations? I would think so, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to justify one interpretation and dismiss another.
* * *
It may sound like I'm getting all squishy and liberal ... and in some sense that may be true. To be honest, I'm just bone weary of reading and hearing and, to some degree, participating in debates about things that to me seem to tangential ... not so much from you, but just in general. So I continue to ponder what is the absolute essence of the Christian faith.
Because what I'm finding is that for all the intellectual fun I might have debating some theological point, the truth is I'm not coming closer to Christ himself in the process. For me, there's something else ... some other calling for me. One that doesn't draw me close to the as-yet-untransformed parts of my heart that is ruled by pride, arrogance, fear and insecurity.
You can't imagine -- you simply can't imagine -- how much I yearn to drop my sword and shield and really come unto Him to find rest.
Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. But would you agree it's a possibility? There's a hint of something along these lines in the parable offered in Matthew 20:1-16:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.It may be that an ocean of people who followed other religions get into heaven. It may be they do not. But whatever happens, to me it seems two things are clear:"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.
"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
Matthew 20:1-16, NIV
- Based on Matthew 20:1-16, it would seem to me our proper response should be at worst contentment with what we have received; at best joy for those saved.
- If Jesus is making the decision, then the decision must be just and right. Unless God is really arbitrary and capricious. But I don't believe that. So again, if God is perfectly just, and God is making the final decisions, then those final decisions are just ... whatever they may turn out to be.
* * *
John 14:6 (King James Version)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
That's what it says. What does that mean? Is there potential latitude in the possible interpretations? I would think so, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to justify one interpretation and dismiss another.
* * *
It may sound like I'm getting all squishy and liberal ... and in some sense that may be true. To be honest, I'm just bone weary of reading and hearing and, to some degree, participating in debates about things that to me seem to tangential ... not so much from you, but just in general. So I continue to ponder what is the absolute essence of the Christian faith.
Because what I'm finding is that for all the intellectual fun I might have debating some theological point, the truth is I'm not coming closer to Christ himself in the process. For me, there's something else ... some other calling for me. One that doesn't draw me close to the as-yet-untransformed parts of my heart that is ruled by pride, arrogance, fear and insecurity.
You can't imagine -- you simply can't imagine -- how much I yearn to drop my sword and shield and really come unto Him to find rest.
Fat chance
Why should that not also include trusting him to do what is right and just with all those people for whom you are concerned?
Well for starters:
that upon death one comes before Jesus, and at that point they have a final opportunity to reject or accept him.
Well that's the answer then. The Muslim dies, he's standing in front of Jesus, looking around for any sign of Mohammed and not finding him. He just sees Jesus before him. In that case, if the Muslim still rejects Jesus then he goes to eternal damnation. Alternatively if the Muslim does accept Jesus then all the mosque-work done throughout the life of the Muslim is put aside with an "ok you were unlucky to be born in downtown Baghdad but at least in the end you made the right decision, you may enter".
Well for starters:
John 14:6 (King James Version)So clearly in this life the person born in downtown Baghdad -- who is very likely to become a Muslim let's face it -- has little chance of coming to God.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
that upon death one comes before Jesus, and at that point they have a final opportunity to reject or accept him.
Well that's the answer then. The Muslim dies, he's standing in front of Jesus, looking around for any sign of Mohammed and not finding him. He just sees Jesus before him. In that case, if the Muslim still rejects Jesus then he goes to eternal damnation. Alternatively if the Muslim does accept Jesus then all the mosque-work done throughout the life of the Muslim is put aside with an "ok you were unlucky to be born in downtown Baghdad but at least in the end you made the right decision, you may enter".
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Joys of "Chili Spaghetti"
So help me, I do love it so.*
Since at least when I was in my 20's, I have enjoyed the simple pleasure of a pile of steaming spaghetti smothered in a good chili, covered with cheddar cheese and Tabasco hot sauce. I am having that tonight. It is yummy.
And it seems that true spaghetti -- the long, thin stuff -- is key. Elbow macaroni or any other shape doesn't seem to taste as good. I know that pasta is pasta. But for some reason, the long spaghetti strikes my palette best.
* Note: a thin reference to a line from the movie "Patton." General Patton is on a hillside, overlooking the aftermath of a battle. He surveys the carnage, and comments how there is nothing in all of human endeavor he loves as much. "I love it. God help me, I love it so."
Since at least when I was in my 20's, I have enjoyed the simple pleasure of a pile of steaming spaghetti smothered in a good chili, covered with cheddar cheese and Tabasco hot sauce. I am having that tonight. It is yummy.
And it seems that true spaghetti -- the long, thin stuff -- is key. Elbow macaroni or any other shape doesn't seem to taste as good. I know that pasta is pasta. But for some reason, the long spaghetti strikes my palette best.
* Note: a thin reference to a line from the movie "Patton." General Patton is on a hillside, overlooking the aftermath of a battle. He surveys the carnage, and comments how there is nothing in all of human endeavor he loves as much. "I love it. God help me, I love it so."
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Source of Justice
Yes but what about someone born in downtown Baghdad? They are in a completely different spot to the person from the Amazon jungle. It's drummed into their head from day zero that Allah and Mohammed are the way, not Jesus.
We are called to believe that this is "just"? Maybe we are but it doesn't seem so. I know I know, it's because we (or at least I) cannot see the big picture :)
No, you misunderstood what I said. There is much on this earth that is not just. The world itself is broken. I'm not aware of any scriptural indication that what transpires on this earth -- in the hands of evil men -- is guaranteed to be right and just.
Note: a greater degree of justice would be that those carrying the message of Christ would be allowed to present their case, and leave the decision to accept or reject that message up to the listener. Of course, in many countries that's not permitted. The message is prohibited by the actions of fallen man. Prohibiting the message is an unjust act instituted by man, not God.
What I said was that God himself is just. And that in the end, when this earth is gone and God calls everyone to account, whatever judgment befalls the person from downtown Baghdad will be a just decision.
I acknowledge that one could argue that the fact there is injustice in this world is evidence that God is himself not just. I don't agree with that argument, but I grant that it is an argument.
Dallas Willard -- not your favorite, I know -- said once, "I don't know who will be saved, but I know that it will be Jesus that does the saving." His point is that while we don't know for certain the exact mechanism and criteria of salvation, we can rely on Christ being the agent of salvation.
There are some -- whether Willard falls in this camp I do not know -- that hold that upon death one comes before Jesus, and at that point they have a final opportunity to reject or accept him. Further, some argue that in the presence of the risen Christ, all will come to Him. They cite the verses:
Ultimately, we -- you and I -- are called to "trust Jesus." Why should that not also include trusting him to do what is right and just with all those people for whom you are concerned?
We are called to believe that this is "just"? Maybe we are but it doesn't seem so. I know I know, it's because we (or at least I) cannot see the big picture :)
No, you misunderstood what I said. There is much on this earth that is not just. The world itself is broken. I'm not aware of any scriptural indication that what transpires on this earth -- in the hands of evil men -- is guaranteed to be right and just.
Note: a greater degree of justice would be that those carrying the message of Christ would be allowed to present their case, and leave the decision to accept or reject that message up to the listener. Of course, in many countries that's not permitted. The message is prohibited by the actions of fallen man. Prohibiting the message is an unjust act instituted by man, not God.
What I said was that God himself is just. And that in the end, when this earth is gone and God calls everyone to account, whatever judgment befalls the person from downtown Baghdad will be a just decision.
I acknowledge that one could argue that the fact there is injustice in this world is evidence that God is himself not just. I don't agree with that argument, but I grant that it is an argument.
Dallas Willard -- not your favorite, I know -- said once, "I don't know who will be saved, but I know that it will be Jesus that does the saving." His point is that while we don't know for certain the exact mechanism and criteria of salvation, we can rely on Christ being the agent of salvation.
There are some -- whether Willard falls in this camp I do not know -- that hold that upon death one comes before Jesus, and at that point they have a final opportunity to reject or accept him. Further, some argue that in the presence of the risen Christ, all will come to Him. They cite the verses:
By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.and in particular:
(Isaiah 45:23, NIV)
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9-11, NIV)Whether this is a true and correct interpretation of scripture, I do not know.
Ultimately, we -- you and I -- are called to "trust Jesus." Why should that not also include trusting him to do what is right and just with all those people for whom you are concerned?
Justice
Someone deep in the Amazon jungle who has never heard of Jesus is in a completely different spot than someone in Rochester
Yes but what about someone born in downtown Baghdad? They are in a completely different spot to the person from the Amazon jungle. It's drummed into their head from day zero that Allah and Mohammed are the way, not Jesus.
We are called to believe that this is "just"? Maybe we are but it doesn't seem so. I know I know, it's because we (or at least I) cannot see the big picture :)
Yes but what about someone born in downtown Baghdad? They are in a completely different spot to the person from the Amazon jungle. It's drummed into their head from day zero that Allah and Mohammed are the way, not Jesus.
We are called to believe that this is "just"? Maybe we are but it doesn't seem so. I know I know, it's because we (or at least I) cannot see the big picture :)
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Salvation
Question: why should where you are born have such an impact on your chances of being saved? It's not fair. Someone born in Rochester Minnesota is a lot more likely to be saved than someone born in downtown Baghdad.
You know, I honestly don't know. It's my opinion that the critical thing is rejection of knowledge, not lack of knowledge. Someone deep in the Amazon jungle who has never heard of Jesus is in a completely different spot than someone in Rochester, Minnesota who has had ample opportunity to learn of Christ, but consciously rejected Him.
But again, I honestly have no idea.
The key thing, I believe, is to rest on the belief that God is, among many things, perfectly just. No matter the ultimate outcome, whatever it may be, we are called to believe it'll not be arbitrary and capricious, but perfectly just.
You know, I honestly don't know. It's my opinion that the critical thing is rejection of knowledge, not lack of knowledge. Someone deep in the Amazon jungle who has never heard of Jesus is in a completely different spot than someone in Rochester, Minnesota who has had ample opportunity to learn of Christ, but consciously rejected Him.
But again, I honestly have no idea.
The key thing, I believe, is to rest on the belief that God is, among many things, perfectly just. No matter the ultimate outcome, whatever it may be, we are called to believe it'll not be arbitrary and capricious, but perfectly just.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Comet McNaught
A nice video and you can see Mercury close to the Sun also. Should be visible at dawn/dusk tomorrow also (dusk is still today for you at time of writing).
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/soho_lasco_c3_live.html
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/soho_lasco_c3_live.html
Anti-human mode?
First let me say that I concur with you 100% on your thoughts about the Beckham transfer to LA. It's the same as the Pele story. I would add that the UK public generally like "Posh & Becks" as Victoria and David Beckham are known as. It's understood that his physical powers are on the wane and on the whole I think people wish him luck.
And I agree that the US public will not take to soccer as they have done to football. Part of this is the human propensity to show a preference for things that are familiar.
+++
I will not accept one set of rules that applies to me, but does not apply to her. After that, pretty much everything boils down to the trivial.
Interesting here is that you are not asking to "get one up" on your spouse. Is this anti-human behavior as laid down by "survival of the fittest"? Sounds like all you want is equality?
+++
Question: why should where you are born have such an impact on your chances of being saved? It's ntot fair. Someone born in Rochester Minnesota is a lot more likely to be saved than someone born in downtown Baghdad. I have mentioned this before. Well, I guess the world just isn't fair. Either way, I am certainly glad that I was born in a place that afforded me at least a good chance of salvation :)
+++
You are right, I am such a mom! K had a sleepover (slumber party) at our house with a friend last night and spent this afternoon at same friends house. All arranged on the fly with no stress from either the other parents or myself. Something that was impossible in the days when K's mother was in the saddle. K gives me feedback, she tells me how much happier she is now. Thank You Lord and I pray please keep K happy.
I bought her some new school trousers (pants) this weekend. Goodness knows what K's mum does with all the money I send her. K was wearing hand-me-down trousers from her sister that were far too short for her and all shiny from being directly ironed. Everyone knows you need to put a cloth between the hot serface of the iron and the childs trousers! As I said - I am such a mom :)
And I agree that the US public will not take to soccer as they have done to football. Part of this is the human propensity to show a preference for things that are familiar.
+++
I will not accept one set of rules that applies to me, but does not apply to her. After that, pretty much everything boils down to the trivial.
Interesting here is that you are not asking to "get one up" on your spouse. Is this anti-human behavior as laid down by "survival of the fittest"? Sounds like all you want is equality?
+++
Question: why should where you are born have such an impact on your chances of being saved? It's ntot fair. Someone born in Rochester Minnesota is a lot more likely to be saved than someone born in downtown Baghdad. I have mentioned this before. Well, I guess the world just isn't fair. Either way, I am certainly glad that I was born in a place that afforded me at least a good chance of salvation :)
+++
You are right, I am such a mom! K had a sleepover (slumber party) at our house with a friend last night and spent this afternoon at same friends house. All arranged on the fly with no stress from either the other parents or myself. Something that was impossible in the days when K's mother was in the saddle. K gives me feedback, she tells me how much happier she is now. Thank You Lord and I pray please keep K happy.
I bought her some new school trousers (pants) this weekend. Goodness knows what K's mum does with all the money I send her. K was wearing hand-me-down trousers from her sister that were far too short for her and all shiny from being directly ironed. Everyone knows you need to put a cloth between the hot serface of the iron and the childs trousers! As I said - I am such a mom :)
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bend it Like Beckham
The big sports news here -- perhaps there as well -- is that David Beckham has signed with the Los Angeles Galaxy of the MLS. The deal, worth reportedly $250M, is being touted as the start of a renaissance for "soccer" here in the U.S.
I don't believe a word of it. I believe that he signed, and I believe the deal is worth lots of money. I just doubt it'll mean much in terms of how the U.S. embraces soccer or how the international community views U.S. soccer.
I'm reminded of the 1970's when Brazilian star Pele came north to play for the professional soccer league in existence at that time. Lots of fanfare; very little lasting result.
Note: yes, soccer is quiet popular among the young here in the United States. Tons of soccer leagues. Kids rarely go out for baseball any more, which explains why the sport of baseball is increasingly dominated by the Latin Americans and the Japanese. But all that youthful enthusiasm hasn't translated into much. It's been bandied about for 30 years, yet professional soccer is marginal at best in the U.S. College soccer is lightly attended.
I'm not disparaging soccer ... I'm just pointing out the obvious: soccer just doesn't command the attention of the American public. Probably the same way in which NASCAR auto racing isn't a big thing over there.
The same holds true for this, I believe. I have three reasons for thinking this:
Am I being too cynical? Do you see this recent development as anything really all that exciting from a purely sport perspective, as opposed to a celebrity perspective?
I don't believe a word of it. I believe that he signed, and I believe the deal is worth lots of money. I just doubt it'll mean much in terms of how the U.S. embraces soccer or how the international community views U.S. soccer.
I'm reminded of the 1970's when Brazilian star Pele came north to play for the professional soccer league in existence at that time. Lots of fanfare; very little lasting result.
Note: yes, soccer is quiet popular among the young here in the United States. Tons of soccer leagues. Kids rarely go out for baseball any more, which explains why the sport of baseball is increasingly dominated by the Latin Americans and the Japanese. But all that youthful enthusiasm hasn't translated into much. It's been bandied about for 30 years, yet professional soccer is marginal at best in the U.S. College soccer is lightly attended.
I'm not disparaging soccer ... I'm just pointing out the obvious: soccer just doesn't command the attention of the American public. Probably the same way in which NASCAR auto racing isn't a big thing over there.
The same holds true for this, I believe. I have three reasons for thinking this:
- Soccer just can't break into the U.S. sports attention span, with football, basketball and baseball already competing for the time and dollars, as well as being firmly entrenched in the American psyche.
- David Beckham may still be good, but I doubt anyone seriously considers him the best in the world any more. He may one day have been that, but at 31 (?) he has to be in the twilight of his career. That mirrors Pele's coming to America. He was well past his prime when he signed on with the New York team.
- Finally, I have a hunch -- I don't generally follow these things -- but I have a hunch that he's passed from the roles of sports heroes to celebrity weenies some years back. In other words, he's not taken seriously as a soccer player any more, but rather as a limelight sucking celebrity. Would I be correct in that assessment?
Am I being too cynical? Do you see this recent development as anything really all that exciting from a purely sport perspective, as opposed to a celebrity perspective?
Seethe
"Seethe" -- I like that word. It sounds like what it means.
That seething resentment is exactly how a child feels as it is taught to "treat others as it wishes to be treated" - and this is to be expected. The Golden Rule goes against the natural propensity of a race borne out of natural selection which wants to get one up on it's fellow man. The Golden Rule needs to be taught to us when we are young and it's a painful lesson to learn.
I have no disagreement with this whatever.
But for the Christian, who understands that Jesus was after a transformed heart, is it proper to seethe inside and not at least want to correct that? I would argue the desire to do what Christ would want of us should be present. Absent that -- or, put another way, if seething inside is seen as perfectly acceptable -- I would question exactly how well one really knows Jesus.
I think Children understand this better than we may think they do. I agree that teaching them the Golden Rule is critical and painful. But I'll bet somewhere in their minds they know that there's a odd disconnect going on when they act nicey-nice but feel hateful inside. Would you say that's true?
I've been thinking alot about obedience to Jesus and a kind of hierarchy of submission. It is this: strive first to control the things that are obvious and outward -- what I say, how I act. Then, when that develops into a habit, focus on the internal things: what I'm thinking about others. Only then try to tackle the big ones -- pride, envy, etc.
I think this is Biblically supported. James, I think, writes of curbing one's tongue first and foremost. The Proverbs do as well. That makes some sense. We all can control what we say ... saying hateful and spiteful things is always a deliberate act. Thinking hateful and spiteful things is something different.
* * *
I cannot change them, I can only change myself. By avoiding them I don't make enemies, but then Churchill would say I am not standing up for something. But some things are more equal than others in the "worth standing up for" stakes - wouldn't you agree?
Oh, absolutely. One of my number one rules of marriage is this: come to an understanding about what's really important, and stand on those principles. But do not make everything a principled stand. My number one rule is this: I will not accept one set of rules that applies to me, but does not apply to her. After that, pretty much everything boils down to the trivial.
The same holds for me at work -- I raise problems to management only rarely. But I've found that when I do raise the flag, they respond. Choosing one's battles is important. I'm sure Churchill would have agreed with that. There's a subtle distinction in Churchill's quote: someone with no enemies has no principles; but someone who has no allies is picking too many fights.
You can quote me on that. :-)
That seething resentment is exactly how a child feels as it is taught to "treat others as it wishes to be treated" - and this is to be expected. The Golden Rule goes against the natural propensity of a race borne out of natural selection which wants to get one up on it's fellow man. The Golden Rule needs to be taught to us when we are young and it's a painful lesson to learn.
I have no disagreement with this whatever.
But for the Christian, who understands that Jesus was after a transformed heart, is it proper to seethe inside and not at least want to correct that? I would argue the desire to do what Christ would want of us should be present. Absent that -- or, put another way, if seething inside is seen as perfectly acceptable -- I would question exactly how well one really knows Jesus.
I think Children understand this better than we may think they do. I agree that teaching them the Golden Rule is critical and painful. But I'll bet somewhere in their minds they know that there's a odd disconnect going on when they act nicey-nice but feel hateful inside. Would you say that's true?
I've been thinking alot about obedience to Jesus and a kind of hierarchy of submission. It is this: strive first to control the things that are obvious and outward -- what I say, how I act. Then, when that develops into a habit, focus on the internal things: what I'm thinking about others. Only then try to tackle the big ones -- pride, envy, etc.
I think this is Biblically supported. James, I think, writes of curbing one's tongue first and foremost. The Proverbs do as well. That makes some sense. We all can control what we say ... saying hateful and spiteful things is always a deliberate act. Thinking hateful and spiteful things is something different.
* * *
I cannot change them, I can only change myself. By avoiding them I don't make enemies, but then Churchill would say I am not standing up for something. But some things are more equal than others in the "worth standing up for" stakes - wouldn't you agree?
Oh, absolutely. One of my number one rules of marriage is this: come to an understanding about what's really important, and stand on those principles. But do not make everything a principled stand. My number one rule is this: I will not accept one set of rules that applies to me, but does not apply to her. After that, pretty much everything boils down to the trivial.
The same holds for me at work -- I raise problems to management only rarely. But I've found that when I do raise the flag, they respond. Choosing one's battles is important. I'm sure Churchill would have agreed with that. There's a subtle distinction in Churchill's quote: someone with no enemies has no principles; but someone who has no allies is picking too many fights.
You can quote me on that. :-)
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Where Fault Lies
This may be a surprise to some, but I can categorically say that it is a relief for a child to know that such differences are caused by something beyond their control.
I can well imagine that would be true. And what an awful feeling to think that some genetic malady is your fault. Good for K to have this measure of relief in her heart. Good for you to use Legos effectively as a teaching tool.
But you can't fool me. I know you were just playing with the Legos. She came along and caught you. In a moment of embarrassment, you thought you'd fool her by turning it into a teaching moment. She's onto you though. She probably told everyone at school, "My daddy plays with blocks!"
I can well imagine that would be true. And what an awful feeling to think that some genetic malady is your fault. Good for K to have this measure of relief in her heart. Good for you to use Legos effectively as a teaching tool.
But you can't fool me. I know you were just playing with the Legos. She came along and caught you. In a moment of embarrassment, you thought you'd fool her by turning it into a teaching moment. She's onto you though. She probably told everyone at school, "My daddy plays with blocks!"
Quotes
"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." Abraham Lincoln
Is that a truism, or merely a common trait observed by Lincoln? In other words, is there reason to believe that vices contribute to more or more pronounced virtues? I can't imagine why that would be the case. But it could be that Lincoln was making an observation on an aspect of human nature. Some have a tendency to slip into a kind of muddled complacency, with no particular vices and no particular virtues. But those who live more deliberately step out of that safe ground. Their virtues are many, but by the nature of humans so are their vices.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill
I think this would be related to the Lincoln observation. The only way to avoid having enemies is to become so pliable that you end up having no particular principles. That's one of the animating elements of politics. Some of the most admired politicians are, in fact, the ones who stood up to principle. Churchill being an excellent example. Harry Truman, president immediately after Roosevelt and before Eisenhower being another. Sometimes, however, it takes time for people see and appreciate the strength.
I struggle with this. I'm so deeply programmed to avoid rocking the boat that I tend to avoid standing firm on anything. It's not that I'm obviously two-faced, it's that I shy away from taking stands at all.
"One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." Thomas Sowell
Indeed. As a side note, Thomas Sowell is black professor at Stanford University in Palo Alto and a fellow at the Hoover Institute there. He is a prolific author and staunch conservative. And, as mentioned, he's black. Therefore, in liberal American circles, "black and conservative" is to be reviled. And he is. But conservatives love him. With no particular regard to his skin color.
I'm trying to place this in the context of biblical teaching. I'm not convinced Jesus taught us to go out and be blindingly trusting of others. In fact, there's considerable admonition to assess others carefully -- to avoid wasting the good things of God on those who will trample it; and to avoid false teachers, who seek to tempt the weak into damnation.
How does one be open and loving and properly wary of those who should not be trusted? I have no idea whatever.
Is that a truism, or merely a common trait observed by Lincoln? In other words, is there reason to believe that vices contribute to more or more pronounced virtues? I can't imagine why that would be the case. But it could be that Lincoln was making an observation on an aspect of human nature. Some have a tendency to slip into a kind of muddled complacency, with no particular vices and no particular virtues. But those who live more deliberately step out of that safe ground. Their virtues are many, but by the nature of humans so are their vices.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill
I think this would be related to the Lincoln observation. The only way to avoid having enemies is to become so pliable that you end up having no particular principles. That's one of the animating elements of politics. Some of the most admired politicians are, in fact, the ones who stood up to principle. Churchill being an excellent example. Harry Truman, president immediately after Roosevelt and before Eisenhower being another. Sometimes, however, it takes time for people see and appreciate the strength.
I struggle with this. I'm so deeply programmed to avoid rocking the boat that I tend to avoid standing firm on anything. It's not that I'm obviously two-faced, it's that I shy away from taking stands at all.
"One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." Thomas Sowell
Indeed. As a side note, Thomas Sowell is black professor at Stanford University in Palo Alto and a fellow at the Hoover Institute there. He is a prolific author and staunch conservative. And, as mentioned, he's black. Therefore, in liberal American circles, "black and conservative" is to be reviled. And he is. But conservatives love him. With no particular regard to his skin color.
I'm trying to place this in the context of biblical teaching. I'm not convinced Jesus taught us to go out and be blindingly trusting of others. In fact, there's considerable admonition to assess others carefully -- to avoid wasting the good things of God on those who will trample it; and to avoid false teachers, who seek to tempt the weak into damnation.
How does one be open and loving and properly wary of those who should not be trusted? I have no idea whatever.
The Future: A race between education and disaster
Some good quotes I came across recently:
"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." Abraham Lincoln
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill
"One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." Thomas Sowell
What do you think?
+++
Abraham Lincoln was the first person diagnosed with the condition that I and my daughter have been diagnosed with - "Marfan Syndrome" - or "lego bricks" as K and I call it. The lego bricks name comes from oh maybe 6 years ago now where I explained to K (with lego bricks) that the bodies of humans were a result of smaller things called genes. She understood the concept of building a living creature from small things, I placed a yellow lego brick in the middle of a red lego brick person and said that yellow brick makes us special. Ever since then she has referred to her height/slimness etc as being caused by lego bricks. Even though I have explained that the gene in question is on the long arm of chromosome 15 :)
This may be a surprise to some, but I can categorically say that it is a relief for a child to know that such differences are caused by something beyond their control. As a child I thought it was my fault, and that if I only tried harder, ate more, exercised more, then I would have a body that was more towards the average.
Many people don't understand this, K's mother never understood it thinking that it is much better to hide such information from children, but these people are wrong.
K and I could do much worse than to live as Lincoln did.
+++
Treating others kindly, but through gritted teeth of seething resentment, isn't what Jesus was getting at ...
This is an interesting point. That seething resentment is exactly how a child feels as it is taught to "treat others as it wishes to be treated" - and this is to be expected. The Golden Rule goes against the natural propensity of a race borne out of natural selection which wants to get one up on it's fellow man. The Golden Rule needs to be taught to us when we are young and it's a painful lesson to learn. Even when I do try to follow the Golden Rule I must keep my eyes open for people like whom Sowell refers to above, and on the whole avoid them. I cannot change them, I can only change myself. By avoiding them I don't make enemies, but then Churchill would say I am not standing up for something. But some things are more equal than others in the "worth standing up for" stakes - wouldn't you agree?
Maybe I would say:
"Avoid those battles you can and join with determination to win those battles you cannot" ?
Is this too confrontational? Now the question arises of who decides which battles can be avoided?
"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." Abraham Lincoln
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill
"One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." Thomas Sowell
What do you think?
+++
Abraham Lincoln was the first person diagnosed with the condition that I and my daughter have been diagnosed with - "Marfan Syndrome" - or "lego bricks" as K and I call it. The lego bricks name comes from oh maybe 6 years ago now where I explained to K (with lego bricks) that the bodies of humans were a result of smaller things called genes. She understood the concept of building a living creature from small things, I placed a yellow lego brick in the middle of a red lego brick person and said that yellow brick makes us special. Ever since then she has referred to her height/slimness etc as being caused by lego bricks. Even though I have explained that the gene in question is on the long arm of chromosome 15 :)
This may be a surprise to some, but I can categorically say that it is a relief for a child to know that such differences are caused by something beyond their control. As a child I thought it was my fault, and that if I only tried harder, ate more, exercised more, then I would have a body that was more towards the average.
Many people don't understand this, K's mother never understood it thinking that it is much better to hide such information from children, but these people are wrong.
K and I could do much worse than to live as Lincoln did.
+++
Treating others kindly, but through gritted teeth of seething resentment, isn't what Jesus was getting at ...
This is an interesting point. That seething resentment is exactly how a child feels as it is taught to "treat others as it wishes to be treated" - and this is to be expected. The Golden Rule goes against the natural propensity of a race borne out of natural selection which wants to get one up on it's fellow man. The Golden Rule needs to be taught to us when we are young and it's a painful lesson to learn. Even when I do try to follow the Golden Rule I must keep my eyes open for people like whom Sowell refers to above, and on the whole avoid them. I cannot change them, I can only change myself. By avoiding them I don't make enemies, but then Churchill would say I am not standing up for something. But some things are more equal than others in the "worth standing up for" stakes - wouldn't you agree?
Maybe I would say:
"Avoid those battles you can and join with determination to win those battles you cannot" ?
Is this too confrontational? Now the question arises of who decides which battles can be avoided?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Beatitudes
Matthew 5:40 is part of the "Sermon on the Mount," and represents some very interesting stuff. Just this past Sunday I learned that the verb forms in Matthew 5:1-11 are in the indicative rather than the imperative. I'm a complete dunce with grammar, but Wikipedia says it "describes the relationship of a verb with reality and intent."
* * *
There is a view that is gaining currency that Jesus was not speaking of the afterlife so much as he was speaking of the present life. The "Kingdom of God" is not just some place we go after we die, but rather also a way we can life in the here-and-now with God's presence increasingly in our lives. I'm seeing this thought-thread pop up all over the place. In that context, the beatitudes seem to be saying: "The Kingdom of God is all around us, but most don't realize it because they're prideful and arrogant. The poor in spirit, meek and merciful people are the ones whose hearts are more inclined to see God all about us and take Him in. And by so doing, increasingly live in the presence of God, which is "heaven" in this life.
Your "treat others as you'd have others treat you" dictum maps into this, provided the notion implied in that was sincere and thoroughly baked into one's heart. Treating others kindly, but through gritted teeth of seething resentment, isn't what Jesus was getting at ... if I can extend the concept of the beatitudes out and put it in the context of all the other things Jesus said, particularly about the Pharisees and the way their externals didn't match their internals.
* * *
I admire your continuing to pay child support and for paying extra for E. It is the right thing to do on the purely practical and tactical level -- doing so minimizes the risk A will become upset and demand K back. But it's also the right thing to do at the human level. A is a deeply broken person. You are operating out of a posture of kindness and generosity, not vindicativeness or malice.
* * *
You are managing an incredibly fragile situation there ... I pray you continue to find ways to keep all parties at peace and you get to keep K at home, where you can nurture her.
You're a good man, Mr. deep.thought.
- The indicative mood is used in factual statements.
- The imperative mood expresses commands, direct requests, and prohibitions.
* * *
There is a view that is gaining currency that Jesus was not speaking of the afterlife so much as he was speaking of the present life. The "Kingdom of God" is not just some place we go after we die, but rather also a way we can life in the here-and-now with God's presence increasingly in our lives. I'm seeing this thought-thread pop up all over the place. In that context, the beatitudes seem to be saying: "The Kingdom of God is all around us, but most don't realize it because they're prideful and arrogant. The poor in spirit, meek and merciful people are the ones whose hearts are more inclined to see God all about us and take Him in. And by so doing, increasingly live in the presence of God, which is "heaven" in this life.
Your "treat others as you'd have others treat you" dictum maps into this, provided the notion implied in that was sincere and thoroughly baked into one's heart. Treating others kindly, but through gritted teeth of seething resentment, isn't what Jesus was getting at ... if I can extend the concept of the beatitudes out and put it in the context of all the other things Jesus said, particularly about the Pharisees and the way their externals didn't match their internals.
* * *
I admire your continuing to pay child support and for paying extra for E. It is the right thing to do on the purely practical and tactical level -- doing so minimizes the risk A will become upset and demand K back. But it's also the right thing to do at the human level. A is a deeply broken person. You are operating out of a posture of kindness and generosity, not vindicativeness or malice.
* * *
You are managing an incredibly fragile situation there ... I pray you continue to find ways to keep all parties at peace and you get to keep K at home, where you can nurture her.
You're a good man, Mr. deep.thought.
Like chewing barbed wire
Thanks to your Mrs for the advice on remote management, I had guessed as much but it's good to see it confirmed in black and white.
I think writing a book of such stories would be enormously appealing.
I am sure you are correct, especially with your illustrious and imaginative writing style, I so wish you would do it.
+++
Miniver chart:
+++
K's mother, having moved out the area for a number of reasons, not least that she would be closer to her new job, got fired yesterday. The reason she got fired was for arguing with her boss, she's not going to work out her notice either. This is the fifth job I have known her to get fired from - all for the same reason. In one of the sackings she tried to get her boss indicted on sexual harrassment charges but of course they wouldn't stick as they were in her mind only.
It's lucky for her that I am still paying the same money into her household as if K were living there, even though she is living with me now. That was one of the conditions, I'll keep things like that for a while at least until things settle down, but it may be for a long time, as she has no other source of income. In fact I increased the payments slightly as I now pay K's maternal sister, E money directly also, she's 13 now and has a boyfriend :) (Who unfortunately lives a long way from E, near to K and I in fact).
Still it's ok, I recall somewhere in The Bible it says that if people try to get your money or sue you, then you should pay up, and even pay a little bit more then what they are asking for. Is there such a passage I wonder or am I imagining it? I will look !
PS. I looked, this is what I was thinking of:
Matthew 5:40 (New International Version)
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well
I think writing a book of such stories would be enormously appealing.
I am sure you are correct, especially with your illustrious and imaginative writing style, I so wish you would do it.
+++
Miniver chart:
According to Mrs Miniver, in the ideal romance each lover shares exactly two thirds of their interests with the other. She wanted to symbolize this with a diagram of two circles of the same size, overlapping such that the area of the overlap is that same as sum of the areas of each of the two crescents formed (half of the area of the overall figure). What is the ratio of the distance between the centres of the circles and their radii?
The answer is approximately 0.529864, and is believed to be trancendental, here it is:
+++
K's mother, having moved out the area for a number of reasons, not least that she would be closer to her new job, got fired yesterday. The reason she got fired was for arguing with her boss, she's not going to work out her notice either. This is the fifth job I have known her to get fired from - all for the same reason. In one of the sackings she tried to get her boss indicted on sexual harrassment charges but of course they wouldn't stick as they were in her mind only.
It's lucky for her that I am still paying the same money into her household as if K were living there, even though she is living with me now. That was one of the conditions, I'll keep things like that for a while at least until things settle down, but it may be for a long time, as she has no other source of income. In fact I increased the payments slightly as I now pay K's maternal sister, E money directly also, she's 13 now and has a boyfriend :) (Who unfortunately lives a long way from E, near to K and I in fact).
Still it's ok, I recall somewhere in The Bible it says that if people try to get your money or sue you, then you should pay up, and even pay a little bit more then what they are asking for. Is there such a passage I wonder or am I imagining it? I will look !
PS. I looked, this is what I was thinking of:
Matthew 5:40 (New International Version)
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Managing Remotely
The Mrs. says that managing remotely is possible, and in fact is becoming more common nowadays. She offers two points:
* * *
Mrs Minnvers problem is interesting but the solution needs a diagram, one not evident in the Wikipedia :(
Well then ... seems like someone -- you! -- should create one. I can't understand anything math related.
* * *
Human chess is dead though, computer + human tournaments are the way forward.
I suspect there'll always be a human vs. human element to it, if for no other reason than for the "quaintness" of it.
* * *
We have a routine now yes. "New" things I have had to take care of are regular eating, bath and bed times, and good diet -- and ironing! (Of the school uniform).
Two points:
It's funny though, will acronyms like "SOA" or "ESB" still be used in 10 years time? Or will they go the way of SAA?
It'll pass by the wayside as new terms emerge. As I write this presentation and reflect upon what I've witnessed over the past year, there seems an inordinate focus on semantics in this space. "Is XYZ really an ESB?" It's all marketing.
* * *
I go to the 7:30am church service at my church because I like it better -- it's relatively quiet and rather small. The 8:30am service is the "contemporary" service which features "pop" praise songs and lots of noise. It jangles my nerves. The 10:45am service is too late in the morning for me ... I'm an early bird.
The 7:30am service is attended largely by elderly folks. One such attendee is a gentleman named Clint who is 90+ years old. I am struck by the man -- he seems genuinely gentle and kind and at peace with things.
For some time now I have had a thought -- I'll never exercise on it because I'm too lazy -- to go to nursing homes and retirement homes and talk to the people there and get their "stories." I'm not talking about grand stories of adventure, but the simple stories of life. For instance, I'd ask them: "Tell me about your first kiss ... who was it with, what's the setting, and were you nervous?" My guess is the folks would open up and provide such a rich tapestry of memories and recollections it would be precious. I think writing a book of such stories would be enormously appealing.
- If the team being managed is itself a localized team that goes to the same office every day then managing it remotely is much more difficult. Managing a remote (scattered) team remotely is the model that seems to work.
- Communication is the key. The Mrs. is very good about scheduling weekly "touch base" calls, and being open for ST pings. She works hard to maintain a communication link to her people, and they appreciate that.
* * *
Mrs Minnvers problem is interesting but the solution needs a diagram, one not evident in the Wikipedia :(
Well then ... seems like someone -- you! -- should create one. I can't understand anything math related.
* * *
Human chess is dead though, computer + human tournaments are the way forward.
I suspect there'll always be a human vs. human element to it, if for no other reason than for the "quaintness" of it.
* * *
We have a routine now yes. "New" things I have had to take care of are regular eating, bath and bed times, and good diet -- and ironing! (Of the school uniform).
Two points:
- Get a pressure cooker! :-) Just kidding ... but they do make wonderful soups and stews and they cook meat so it's fork tender. I cooked chicken the other night and it came out so wonderfully textured.
- Uniforms? Public school or private? Here the notion of uniforms in the public school was met with a law suit filed by the ACLU citing suppression of the students' right to "free expression." Sheesh.
It's funny though, will acronyms like "SOA" or "ESB" still be used in 10 years time? Or will they go the way of SAA?
It'll pass by the wayside as new terms emerge. As I write this presentation and reflect upon what I've witnessed over the past year, there seems an inordinate focus on semantics in this space. "Is XYZ really an ESB?" It's all marketing.
* * *
I go to the 7:30am church service at my church because I like it better -- it's relatively quiet and rather small. The 8:30am service is the "contemporary" service which features "pop" praise songs and lots of noise. It jangles my nerves. The 10:45am service is too late in the morning for me ... I'm an early bird.
The 7:30am service is attended largely by elderly folks. One such attendee is a gentleman named Clint who is 90+ years old. I am struck by the man -- he seems genuinely gentle and kind and at peace with things.
For some time now I have had a thought -- I'll never exercise on it because I'm too lazy -- to go to nursing homes and retirement homes and talk to the people there and get their "stories." I'm not talking about grand stories of adventure, but the simple stories of life. For instance, I'd ask them: "Tell me about your first kiss ... who was it with, what's the setting, and were you nervous?" My guess is the folks would open up and provide such a rich tapestry of memories and recollections it would be precious. I think writing a book of such stories would be enormously appealing.
Priorities
I like your diagram. It's basic and simple and what is needed. It's funny though, will acronyms like "SOA" or "ESB" still be used in 10 years time? Or will they go the way of SAA?
+++
Mrs Minnvers problem is interesting but the solution needs a diagram, one not evident in the Wikipedia :(
+++
We have a routine now yes. "New" things I have had to take care of are regular eating, bath and bed times, and good diet -- and ironing! (Of the school uniform).
My only concern is when the company we work for says "fly here to fix a critsit" and I won't have the flexibility to be able to do it. Maybe now is the time to move into management as I am getting further behind on technology anyway. The trouble is I have this belief that managers should be near their employees - is that true this days with people working remotely? How does your Mrs handle it?
+++
Human beings are so competitive (courtesy of natural selection?) and chess is such a sublime distraction that it doesn't surprise me that colleges are into it. Human chess is dead though, computer + human tournaments are the way forward. Not tournaments where people cheat using computers though. A young Indian player just got a 10 year ban for cheating - a colleague was passing the computers moves to him through a bluetooth device hidden in his hat.
+++
Mrs Minnvers problem is interesting but the solution needs a diagram, one not evident in the Wikipedia :(
+++
We have a routine now yes. "New" things I have had to take care of are regular eating, bath and bed times, and good diet -- and ironing! (Of the school uniform).
My only concern is when the company we work for says "fly here to fix a critsit" and I won't have the flexibility to be able to do it. Maybe now is the time to move into management as I am getting further behind on technology anyway. The trouble is I have this belief that managers should be near their employees - is that true this days with people working remotely? How does your Mrs handle it?
+++
Human beings are so competitive (courtesy of natural selection?) and chess is such a sublime distraction that it doesn't surprise me that colleges are into it. Human chess is dead though, computer + human tournaments are the way forward. Not tournaments where people cheat using computers though. A young Indian player just got a 10 year ban for cheating - a colleague was passing the computers moves to him through a bluetooth device hidden in his hat.
Mrs. Minniver
I'm working on an "Introduction to SOA and ESB" presentation (for a workshop I'm going to have to teach), and I started thinking about the relationship of Web Services, ESB and SOA to one another. (I had noticed that often people struggled to form this relationship picture in their mind ... asking questions like, "Is Web Services the same thing as SOA?"
Being the geek I am, my mind raced back to high schoole "set theory" and I started scribbling out a "Venn Diagram". I came up with this:
Click here for larger picture.
Note 1: I disclaim the you-know-what out of this thing ... I'm not trying to state this is 100% definitive. But I do think it's helpful in getting people to see that the different terms have some overlap and some isolation. At least I hope it's helpful ... I may get blank stares. :-)
Note 2: Can Web Services and ESB intersect? Maybe ... Web Services can certainly use the ESB, but whether it's proper to represent that as a union of A and B is open to some debate.
Anyway, I naturally went to Wikipedia to see if I got "Venn Diagram" correct in my mind and sure enough there was a nice article on the subject. And down at the bottom was an intriguing reference to "Mrs. Minniver's Problem," which can be found here. It's a mathematical problem.
I never cease to be amazed at the way Wikipedia seems to have so many fascinating articles about so many arcane things.
Being the geek I am, my mind raced back to high schoole "set theory" and I started scribbling out a "Venn Diagram". I came up with this:
Click here for larger picture.
Note 1: I disclaim the you-know-what out of this thing ... I'm not trying to state this is 100% definitive. But I do think it's helpful in getting people to see that the different terms have some overlap and some isolation. At least I hope it's helpful ... I may get blank stares. :-)
Note 2: Can Web Services and ESB intersect? Maybe ... Web Services can certainly use the ESB, but whether it's proper to represent that as a union of A and B is open to some debate.
Anyway, I naturally went to Wikipedia to see if I got "Venn Diagram" correct in my mind and sure enough there was a nice article on the subject. And down at the bottom was an intriguing reference to "Mrs. Minniver's Problem," which can be found here. It's a mathematical problem.
I never cease to be amazed at the way Wikipedia seems to have so many fascinating articles about so many arcane things.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Flourishing
That's wonderful news about K. Have the two of you settled into a "routine," or is it all so new and different each day?
* * *
WSRR is a place where information about services is maintained -- not only the WSDL and XSD files, but also "meta-data" such as information about relationships between services. Further, the WSRR application is meant to be used as part of the overall service life-cycle. It serves a function something like UDDI, but with much more information and capabilities.
Under the covers it's really just a J2EE application that installs into WebSphere, with a DB2 backing database for the information. User access is through either a web interface or an Eclipse plugin; programmatic access is through SOAP or RMI.
Installing it is easy. The harder part, I surmise, is understanding the data model and making full use of it. That's about all I know right now.
* * *
WSRR is a place where information about services is maintained -- not only the WSDL and XSD files, but also "meta-data" such as information about relationships between services. Further, the WSRR application is meant to be used as part of the overall service life-cycle. It serves a function something like UDDI, but with much more information and capabilities.
Under the covers it's really just a J2EE application that installs into WebSphere, with a DB2 backing database for the information. User access is through either a web interface or an Eclipse plugin; programmatic access is through SOAP or RMI.
Installing it is easy. The harder part, I surmise, is understanding the data model and making full use of it. That's about all I know right now.
Complexity
I have heard of WSRR and it appears to be a "hot" product. I have no idea what it does and why though.
Cast your mind back to when applications were monolithic. Take a large CICS application for example. Would an SOA "service" of today be analogous to a particular CICS transaction? Would a "registry" be the CICS list of transactions available to a region? Not sure what the repository would be .. a disk?
There is no doubt we as an industry are making things far more complicated than they need to be. I think things will improve over the next 10-20 years though. Software development is missing some basic building blocks, as soon as we create what looks like a good building block (by "building block" I mean something we can "black-box" so that we don't need to expose the complexity within it) we go and create something else on top of it with exposed complexity. I think the root cause of the problem is a) human nature and b) the non-physical nature of software.
+++
My daughter seems to be thriving at home with me. I was worried that she might not be happy here or miss her mother and sister but it's the opposite. I now wonder how bad it must have been for her all those years to want to turn away and not look back. Still early days I guess.
Cast your mind back to when applications were monolithic. Take a large CICS application for example. Would an SOA "service" of today be analogous to a particular CICS transaction? Would a "registry" be the CICS list of transactions available to a region? Not sure what the repository would be .. a disk?
There is no doubt we as an industry are making things far more complicated than they need to be. I think things will improve over the next 10-20 years though. Software development is missing some basic building blocks, as soon as we create what looks like a good building block (by "building block" I mean something we can "black-box" so that we don't need to expose the complexity within it) we go and create something else on top of it with exposed complexity. I think the root cause of the problem is a) human nature and b) the non-physical nature of software.
+++
My daughter seems to be thriving at home with me. I was worried that she might not be happy here or miss her mother and sister but it's the opposite. I now wonder how bad it must have been for her all those years to want to turn away and not look back. Still early days I guess.
Friday, January 05, 2007
More SOA
I'm digging deeper into this world because I have to come up with a few charts on WSRR -- Registry and Repository. As I read, and read some more, and follow hyperlinks hither and yonder, I'm coming to a conclusion about why I've been, and continue to be, somewhat confused by this:
Note: It may be me. It may simply be that I'm new to this and incapable of grasping the nuances. Or it may be that the conceptual model that I'm building in my mind is not yet complete. But once that's done I will see things more clearly through the prism of that framework. Uh oh, I've mixed metaphors.
WSRR is the implementatoin of the "Registry and Repository" function of an SOA. To me, my mind wants first to understand its role as part of the steady-state operations of a static SOA. Let me understand its role in helping service consumers in an SOA locate and understand available services, and then use them. After that concept is firmly in place, then move on to how the registry and repository can be used to aid early in the development cycle, or as a tool to be used in monitoring and measuring the SOA.
I truly am a slow learner. I get there, eventually, but not quickly.
There seems to be a tendency to conflate architecture with implementation; to conflate notions of development life cycles with runtime principles. It results in the initial impression that everything is vast in scale and complexity.Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying there's no need to have an architecture, or to strive towards having some structure and management across the whole development and use life cycle. What I'm saying is that in wading through the various charts and white papers I'm seeing elements of each intermixed ... as if the distinction is obvious and no lines need be drawn.
Note: It may be me. It may simply be that I'm new to this and incapable of grasping the nuances. Or it may be that the conceptual model that I'm building in my mind is not yet complete. But once that's done I will see things more clearly through the prism of that framework. Uh oh, I've mixed metaphors.
WSRR is the implementatoin of the "Registry and Repository" function of an SOA. To me, my mind wants first to understand its role as part of the steady-state operations of a static SOA. Let me understand its role in helping service consumers in an SOA locate and understand available services, and then use them. After that concept is firmly in place, then move on to how the registry and repository can be used to aid early in the development cycle, or as a tool to be used in monitoring and measuring the SOA.
I truly am a slow learner. I get there, eventually, but not quickly.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Designer Babies
If abortion is a "right" and the "personal decision" of a woman, by what rationale could one argue a woman should not have the right to abort a fetus known to be gay?
Is that what the liberals are saying? You can abort a fetus as long as it's not going to turn into a gay adult? Surely not, if so then they would also be saying that black people could not have abortions?
Oh no, they're not saying that. But that's the box they've got themselves into. Liberalism -- at least in this country -- has positioned itself so that the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-gay lobby are almost inseparably linked in the liberal bed. So with the advancements in genetic science we find ourselves in a position where people can start aborting fetuses based on more and more knowledge of that fetus ... including it being gay.
Note: that's already occurring, of course -- some very large percentage of Downs Syndrome fetuses are aborted. The new issue is that more and more "qualities" of a person are being identified in the genome, and with that comes early identification. Tragic defects are one thing; being gay is quite another. How about even less "tragic" characteristics -- the boy in the womb will not grow to be 6'6" tall and therefore won't have a chance to be a start basketball player?
The pro-abortion lobby is at the present time silent on this. They know they're in a box. They're searching for an escape ... one where they don't have to limit the availability of abortion.
Seems like they are pro-abortion regardless of what the fetus may be.
You would think so. But I doubt that's how it'll end up. What they'll do is come up with a set of guidelines for when abortion is "acceptable" and when it's not. That list will, of course, be based on their preferences. Those with different preferences will be shouted down. Such is the nature of discourse in America today.
Wouldn't a better solution be to offer young girls some kind of support to take the child to term and have it adopted by the thousands of childless couples desperate to have one? I know that this would be very much open to abuse by those folks looking for crab legs though.
There is a story -- true, I believe -- where Mother Theresa was speaking to an audience that included President and Mrs. Clinton, both ardent "pro-choice" supporters. Mother Theresa, not one to back down, stood at the podium and said of abortion: "Do not abort them ... give them to me!"
Yes, it would be a better solution to encourage -- heck, subsidize -- the carrying to term and the putting up for adoption those children that aren't wanted by the birth mother but desperately wanted by other couples. Do you know what the counter-argument is? "It would be too harmful to the mother to carry the child to term and have to give it up."
If you look at the pro-abortion lobby in America, they have positioned "health of the mother" as the ultimate criteria for allowing abortions. And by "health" they mean anything, including a troubled conscience.
The question is ... what trumps what? The health of the mother, or the political correctness of being gay? That's the dilemma.
Deliberately breeding less function into your child? How selfish is that?
Enormously so. The human race has an almost limitless capacity for selfish behavior.
I suffer from a genetic defect which I have passed onto my daughter. I would have given anything not to have passed it on but I did, if I could have removed the defect from her at any time I would have done it.
I understand. And I'm sorry about her picking up the defect on a 50/50 proposition. I wish there was something I could do to help, but of course there is not.
John Derbyshire of NRO wrote, in response to others on that site who are arguing against research into genetic modifications:
Not that I am saying we should not do it, but that we should try to think "outside of the box" when we do.
Are we permitted the opportunity to truly "think outside the box" anymore? Or has multi-culturalism and political correctness reduced the parameters of free thinking to such a degree that "outside" the box really isn't outside anymore?
Note: here in the United States, some weeks ago now, six Muslim Imams boarded a US Airways plane in Minneapolis and started to engage in behavior that was frighteningly like the behavior reported to have been done by the 9/11 hi-jackers: changing seats at the last minute, asking for seat belt extenders they did not need, speaking in Arabic and making anti-US statements. The passengers, unnerved, requested the Imams be removed. They were. All hell broke loose. The government's response has been to force "sensitivity training" on the airlines and security personnel.
It is almost perfectly clear those Imams were trying to provoke such a response so they could they could ram-rod a law suit or other concession ... which of course then makes it easier for terrorists in the future. If I were to joke about hijacking a plane I would be arrested. There's no question about that -- they warn that joking about such things is unlawful. But I guess it's okay to exhibit behavior exactly like known terrorists in the past.
That's not related to the question of genetic manipulation and the effects of that, but it makes my point that there are parameters around what we are "allowed" to think and say. It is and will be the undoing of our society.
Is that what the liberals are saying? You can abort a fetus as long as it's not going to turn into a gay adult? Surely not, if so then they would also be saying that black people could not have abortions?
Oh no, they're not saying that. But that's the box they've got themselves into. Liberalism -- at least in this country -- has positioned itself so that the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-gay lobby are almost inseparably linked in the liberal bed. So with the advancements in genetic science we find ourselves in a position where people can start aborting fetuses based on more and more knowledge of that fetus ... including it being gay.
Note: that's already occurring, of course -- some very large percentage of Downs Syndrome fetuses are aborted. The new issue is that more and more "qualities" of a person are being identified in the genome, and with that comes early identification. Tragic defects are one thing; being gay is quite another. How about even less "tragic" characteristics -- the boy in the womb will not grow to be 6'6" tall and therefore won't have a chance to be a start basketball player?
The pro-abortion lobby is at the present time silent on this. They know they're in a box. They're searching for an escape ... one where they don't have to limit the availability of abortion.
Seems like they are pro-abortion regardless of what the fetus may be.
You would think so. But I doubt that's how it'll end up. What they'll do is come up with a set of guidelines for when abortion is "acceptable" and when it's not. That list will, of course, be based on their preferences. Those with different preferences will be shouted down. Such is the nature of discourse in America today.
Wouldn't a better solution be to offer young girls some kind of support to take the child to term and have it adopted by the thousands of childless couples desperate to have one? I know that this would be very much open to abuse by those folks looking for crab legs though.
There is a story -- true, I believe -- where Mother Theresa was speaking to an audience that included President and Mrs. Clinton, both ardent "pro-choice" supporters. Mother Theresa, not one to back down, stood at the podium and said of abortion: "Do not abort them ... give them to me!"
Yes, it would be a better solution to encourage -- heck, subsidize -- the carrying to term and the putting up for adoption those children that aren't wanted by the birth mother but desperately wanted by other couples. Do you know what the counter-argument is? "It would be too harmful to the mother to carry the child to term and have to give it up."
If you look at the pro-abortion lobby in America, they have positioned "health of the mother" as the ultimate criteria for allowing abortions. And by "health" they mean anything, including a troubled conscience.
The question is ... what trumps what? The health of the mother, or the political correctness of being gay? That's the dilemma.
Deliberately breeding less function into your child? How selfish is that?
Enormously so. The human race has an almost limitless capacity for selfish behavior.
I suffer from a genetic defect which I have passed onto my daughter. I would have given anything not to have passed it on but I did, if I could have removed the defect from her at any time I would have done it.
I understand. And I'm sorry about her picking up the defect on a 50/50 proposition. I wish there was something I could do to help, but of course there is not.
John Derbyshire of NRO wrote, in response to others on that site who are arguing against research into genetic modifications:
"If that is typical of the arguments that will be placed before the American public to persuade them that it would be wrong, wrong, wrong for them to pay $2,000 to a clinic to increase the odds of their newborn being healthy, clever, and good-looking; well, as I said, lotsa luck."He's absolutely right, of course. Further, he writes:
"And even if I wasn't fine with it, it would happen anyway because the demand would be great and the objections so abstract & theoretical it would he hard to get anyone to care about them." (emphasis added)Right again. There may be no more powerful and overwhelming force in our human existence than the desire of a parent for their child to be healthy and happy. Abstract arguments against something that will provide that will bounce off public opinion like pepples off a windshield.\
Not that I am saying we should not do it, but that we should try to think "outside of the box" when we do.
Are we permitted the opportunity to truly "think outside the box" anymore? Or has multi-culturalism and political correctness reduced the parameters of free thinking to such a degree that "outside" the box really isn't outside anymore?
Note: here in the United States, some weeks ago now, six Muslim Imams boarded a US Airways plane in Minneapolis and started to engage in behavior that was frighteningly like the behavior reported to have been done by the 9/11 hi-jackers: changing seats at the last minute, asking for seat belt extenders they did not need, speaking in Arabic and making anti-US statements. The passengers, unnerved, requested the Imams be removed. They were. All hell broke loose. The government's response has been to force "sensitivity training" on the airlines and security personnel.
It is almost perfectly clear those Imams were trying to provoke such a response so they could they could ram-rod a law suit or other concession ... which of course then makes it easier for terrorists in the future. If I were to joke about hijacking a plane I would be arrested. There's no question about that -- they warn that joking about such things is unlawful. But I guess it's okay to exhibit behavior exactly like known terrorists in the past.
That's not related to the question of genetic manipulation and the effects of that, but it makes my point that there are parameters around what we are "allowed" to think and say. It is and will be the undoing of our society.
Kirk: "I need my pain!"
Isn't there a fable or story or something about the perils of knowing the mind of God?
If homosexuality is "a sin" then surely God would be pleased if humanity attempted to minimize the occurence of it through genetic manipulation? This would reduce the overall sin-burden on humanity somewhat would it not?
My concern is that if homosexuality arose through natural selection then what would removing it do to the ecological balance? Would there be more children? Would there be more people wanting to have wars? I really don't know.
I am reminded of the Science Fiction story where humans found this new planet to colonize. On the new planet were these "super killers" - they could run at 300 miles per hour, were great tacticians/hunters and could kill you with their teeth. Humanity lost hundreds of brave soldiers trying to wipe out the 6 of these "super killers" that were alive on this new world. Eventually mankind succeeded, then guess what? Some indiginous lemming like race sprouted up in their millions and overran the humans, the "super killers" had been keeping these things at bay. My point is, once we start messing with the genome we open ourselves up to all sorts of issues.
Not that I am saying we should not do it, but that we should try to think "outside of the box" when we do.
+++
Deliberately breeding less function into your child? How selfish is that? I suffer from a genetic defect which I have passed onto my daughter. I would have given anything not to have passed it on but I did, if I could have removed the defect from her at any time I would have done. Her chest bones are just starting to grow inwards as mine did, so now we get into the "can her back be braced, can anything be done?" I would have spared her this, the pain, the social ostracizing the fear, the failure, not being able to do what your friends do, the breakages, the illnesses, etc.
However, before conception of my daughter, I was told that she had a 50/50 chance of inheriting what I have, so in that case I am not much better than these parents by deciding to have her, am I? But still I don't regret having her and she seems happy enough right now. Sometimes I wonder about how selfish I actually am and it's lots, but I am trying to improve.
If abortion is a "right" and the "personal decision" of a woman, by what rationale could one argue a woman should not have the right to abort a fetus known to be gay?
Is that what the liberals are saying? You can abort a fetus as long as it's not going to turn into a gay adult? Surely not, if so then they would also be saying that black people could not have abortions? Seems like they are pro-abortion regardless of what the fetus may be.
Wouldn't a better solution be to offer young girls some kind of support to take the child to term and have it adopted by the thousands of childless couples desperate to have one? I know that this would be very much open to abuse by those folks looking for crab legs though.
+++
On that Kim. The one that got a way. Man you write a great story. Sorry to hear about the pain you were in, but I guess that particular experience is one of the ones that makes you who you are today.
If homosexuality is "a sin" then surely God would be pleased if humanity attempted to minimize the occurence of it through genetic manipulation? This would reduce the overall sin-burden on humanity somewhat would it not?
My concern is that if homosexuality arose through natural selection then what would removing it do to the ecological balance? Would there be more children? Would there be more people wanting to have wars? I really don't know.
I am reminded of the Science Fiction story where humans found this new planet to colonize. On the new planet were these "super killers" - they could run at 300 miles per hour, were great tacticians/hunters and could kill you with their teeth. Humanity lost hundreds of brave soldiers trying to wipe out the 6 of these "super killers" that were alive on this new world. Eventually mankind succeeded, then guess what? Some indiginous lemming like race sprouted up in their millions and overran the humans, the "super killers" had been keeping these things at bay. My point is, once we start messing with the genome we open ourselves up to all sorts of issues.
Not that I am saying we should not do it, but that we should try to think "outside of the box" when we do.
+++
Deliberately breeding less function into your child? How selfish is that? I suffer from a genetic defect which I have passed onto my daughter. I would have given anything not to have passed it on but I did, if I could have removed the defect from her at any time I would have done. Her chest bones are just starting to grow inwards as mine did, so now we get into the "can her back be braced, can anything be done?" I would have spared her this, the pain, the social ostracizing the fear, the failure, not being able to do what your friends do, the breakages, the illnesses, etc.
However, before conception of my daughter, I was told that she had a 50/50 chance of inheriting what I have, so in that case I am not much better than these parents by deciding to have her, am I? But still I don't regret having her and she seems happy enough right now. Sometimes I wonder about how selfish I actually am and it's lots, but I am trying to improve.
If abortion is a "right" and the "personal decision" of a woman, by what rationale could one argue a woman should not have the right to abort a fetus known to be gay?
Is that what the liberals are saying? You can abort a fetus as long as it's not going to turn into a gay adult? Surely not, if so then they would also be saying that black people could not have abortions? Seems like they are pro-abortion regardless of what the fetus may be.
Wouldn't a better solution be to offer young girls some kind of support to take the child to term and have it adopted by the thousands of childless couples desperate to have one? I know that this would be very much open to abuse by those folks looking for crab legs though.
+++
On that Kim. The one that got a way. Man you write a great story. Sorry to hear about the pain you were in, but I guess that particular experience is one of the ones that makes you who you are today.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
What's Good for the Goose
From this article:
The power to prevent the birth of homosexually oriented offspring will also mean that gay (or deaf or dwarf) parents can engineer children to be like them. The Times had a piece on this last month. It will be particularly interesting to see the reaction of the children who were engineered by their parents to be deaf or gay or dwarves.Isn't there a fable or story or something about the perils of knowing the mind of God? It seems the more we delve into the workings of life, the more we find ourselves faced with dilemmas we're hardly capable of comprehending.
Only a Matter of Time
This article is very interesting. An excerpt:
Social conservatives have for some time been decrying the advances in cloning and embryonic stem cell research ... usually to the mocking calls of liberals. Well, as my title post says, it was only a matter of time before Pandora came around to bite.
I will repeat my question of several years ago: If abortion is a "right" and the "personal decision" of a woman, by what rationale could one argue a woman should not have the right to abort a fetus known to be gay?
SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans. (emphasis added)Some time ago I speculated that when and if science ever came up with a way to determine an embryo was inclined towards homosexuality, that would be the day that the pro-abortion lobby would find themselves in a real pickle. Well, this is along the same lines.There is a tendency to want one's cake and eat it too. We want certain benefits of bio-engineering and gene sequencing, but want to prohibit others. The problem is, of course, that we can't get complete agreement on any of it.
It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.
Social conservatives have for some time been decrying the advances in cloning and embryonic stem cell research ... usually to the mocking calls of liberals. Well, as my title post says, it was only a matter of time before Pandora came around to bite.
I will repeat my question of several years ago: If abortion is a "right" and the "personal decision" of a woman, by what rationale could one argue a woman should not have the right to abort a fetus known to be gay?
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
What James Watson Has Learned
From article posted here.
Excerpt:
Example. Imagine I wrote:
Sheesh ... stuff like this makes me steam.
Update:
A reader e-mails John Derbyshire of National Review and offers this:
Excerpt:
You explain things by way of ideas. Why do we have a government that is run by rich trash? Because they've used their money to buy the presidency. Bush is a tool for the people who don't want an inheritance tax. And Frist isn't an innocent bystander, with his own family fortune—hundreds of millions. The piece of shit, I hate him.What an utterly incoherent mush of a statement. Bush is many things, but not merely a "tool for the people who don't want an inheritance tax." Such statements betray what's really behind the statement ... and in this case, apparently not much. I don't care that he did co-discover DNA. It's no excuse for stupid commentary like this. And the way he wrote of (Bill) Frist is merely the ramblings of a bitter old man.
I've seen no evidence of a god, so I'm not going to think about one.You have your "god," sir -- it's called the idol you've created around this thing called DNA and your celebrity built on it.
Being raised nonreligious made you free. You could look at the evidence. Whether being nonreligious or a Democrat more important, I can't tell you.More incoherent babble. Honestly, what possible connection is there between "non-religion" and the importance of "being a Democrat?" That's the kind of sloppy thinking you or I would get slapped silly for putting in print.
Example. Imagine I wrote:
Bill Clinton was a shameless pedophile! He was really just a puppet of Hillary anyway. And what about all those people he had killed? Like Vince Foster!Now ... any sensible person would think me deranged for writing that.
Sheesh ... stuff like this makes me steam.
Update:
A reader e-mails John Derbyshire of National Review and offers this:
In that Esquire piece, Watson says: 'Why do we have a government that is run by rich trash? Because they've used their money to buy the presidency. Bush is a tool for the people who don't want an inheritance tax. And Frist isn't an innocent bystander, with his own family fortune—hundreds of millions. The piece of shit, I hate him.' But then about seven paragraphs later, he says: 'Francis Crick said we should pay poor people not to have children. I think now we're in a terrible situation where we pay the rich people to have children. If there is any correlation between success and genes, IQ will fall if the successful don't have children. These are self-obvious facts.'That's what I'm talking about -- it's a logical deconstruction of a foolish rant.
So are 'successful' families like the Bushes & the Frists supposed to have children, or are they not supposed to have children?
... two paragraphs later, he says: 'Being raised nonreligious made you free. You could look at the evidence. Whether being nonreligious or a Democrat [is?] more important, I can't tell you.' So maybe there are two kinds of 'successful' families: the successful atheist democrat families, from whom we need more children, and the successful religious republican families, from whom we need fewer children?
Sybase
I think that the cause of this is fundamentally due to the mysterious way that God moves in.
Indeed. Which itself is a bit of a mystery. Why? The Bible says that in the beginning God did "walk with" man. Presumably that means made Himself far more evident to them. They opted to separate themselves from God, and I guess that meant He made himself mysterious. Even the burning bush Moses experienced was somewhat mysterious ... a physical "miracle" of a combustible material failing to be consumed by fire, from which God "spoke" (whatever form that really took) to Moses.
Even in Jesus, who we are to believe was the human manifestation of God himself, spoke and behaved in mysterious ways. There are times I find I can't fault the Pharisees and other doubters of Jesus' day. Even his disciples had to say, "We can't understand what you're saying ... please speak more plainly."
I'm sure there's an explanation for this. I just don't know what it would be.
* * *
I cared deeply for her. But I could do nothing about it
So why didn't you and Kim get together then?
Because I was married at the time. I had a strong sense of duty to the commitment made to my wife, if not any real "love" for her. She was and is a fine person, and I never hated or disliked her; I just didn't love her. We didn't get divorced until five years later, and by then Kim was out of the picture. I moved to North Carolina in 1984 and I lost contact with her in May of 1985. She was right to disassociate herself from me ... she had a life to get on with, and I gave no clear signal that I would break my vows to be with her. Truth is, I was tormented by the dilemma I found myself in. By the time I was divorced in 1989, Kim was (I came to understand, through some informal grapevines) married and with children.
She was lovely ... 5'10" tall, athletic, of Lithuanian decent with bright blonde hair and brown eyes. But more important than the physical appearance was the way the two of us could sit and talk about all sorts of things for hours on end. There was no question I was in love with her; there was no question she felt the same way. But due to a commitment I'd made earlier, and a sense of duty to that commitment, there was then a barrier between us.
My heart literally ached.
I vividly recall the day my wife and I drove out of Michigan on our way to North Carolina to start our new life. We had two cars at the time; she drove one and I drove the other. As we departed East Lansing, Michigan we came to the point where if I turned south I'd head for NC and away from Kim; if I turned north I could go to Kim but of course destroy my wife. With tears in my eyes I turned south.
* * *
I often wonder what I missed
Crab legs? :)
LOL! Yes!
Indeed. Which itself is a bit of a mystery. Why? The Bible says that in the beginning God did "walk with" man. Presumably that means made Himself far more evident to them. They opted to separate themselves from God, and I guess that meant He made himself mysterious. Even the burning bush Moses experienced was somewhat mysterious ... a physical "miracle" of a combustible material failing to be consumed by fire, from which God "spoke" (whatever form that really took) to Moses.
Even in Jesus, who we are to believe was the human manifestation of God himself, spoke and behaved in mysterious ways. There are times I find I can't fault the Pharisees and other doubters of Jesus' day. Even his disciples had to say, "We can't understand what you're saying ... please speak more plainly."
I'm sure there's an explanation for this. I just don't know what it would be.
* * *
I cared deeply for her. But I could do nothing about it
So why didn't you and Kim get together then?
Because I was married at the time. I had a strong sense of duty to the commitment made to my wife, if not any real "love" for her. She was and is a fine person, and I never hated or disliked her; I just didn't love her. We didn't get divorced until five years later, and by then Kim was out of the picture. I moved to North Carolina in 1984 and I lost contact with her in May of 1985. She was right to disassociate herself from me ... she had a life to get on with, and I gave no clear signal that I would break my vows to be with her. Truth is, I was tormented by the dilemma I found myself in. By the time I was divorced in 1989, Kim was (I came to understand, through some informal grapevines) married and with children.
She was lovely ... 5'10" tall, athletic, of Lithuanian decent with bright blonde hair and brown eyes. But more important than the physical appearance was the way the two of us could sit and talk about all sorts of things for hours on end. There was no question I was in love with her; there was no question she felt the same way. But due to a commitment I'd made earlier, and a sense of duty to that commitment, there was then a barrier between us.
My heart literally ached.
I vividly recall the day my wife and I drove out of Michigan on our way to North Carolina to start our new life. We had two cars at the time; she drove one and I drove the other. As we departed East Lansing, Michigan we came to the point where if I turned south I'd head for NC and away from Kim; if I turned north I could go to Kim but of course destroy my wife. With tears in my eyes I turned south.
* * *
I often wonder what I missed
Crab legs? :)
LOL! Yes!
The Oracle
Very few people -- including myself, I fear -- really believe in #2.
I think that the cause of this is fundamentally due to the mysterious way that God moves in. If there was a place, Church or whatever, that one could go to and have a conversation with God, like Moses did with the burning bush, then a lot more people would believe in God. Heck, in such a case it would be hard not to believe in God, rather than the other way around.
But God moves in mysterious ways, there isn't such a place, well not a place that everyone can see, touch etc, like a burning bush .. that's just how it is.
+++
I cared deeply for her. But I could do nothing about it
So why didn't you and Kim get together then?
I often wonder what I missed
Crab legs? :)
I think that the cause of this is fundamentally due to the mysterious way that God moves in. If there was a place, Church or whatever, that one could go to and have a conversation with God, like Moses did with the burning bush, then a lot more people would believe in God. Heck, in such a case it would be hard not to believe in God, rather than the other way around.
But God moves in mysterious ways, there isn't such a place, well not a place that everyone can see, touch etc, like a burning bush .. that's just how it is.
+++
I cared deeply for her. But I could do nothing about it
So why didn't you and Kim get together then?
I often wonder what I missed
Crab legs? :)
I Did It My Way ...
The Frank Sinatra song "My Way" has a line that starts with, "Regrets ... I've had a few ... but then again ... too few to mention."
Interesting concept, this thing called "regrets." I think some categorization is in order:
1 - Intentional Acts
Interesting concept, this thing called "regrets." I think some categorization is in order:
- Things I've done intentionally I regret doing
- Things I've done unintentionally that I regret doing
- Things I've not done that I regret having not done them
- Things done to me intentionally that I regret happened
- Things done to me unintentionally that I regret happened
- Things not done to me that I regret never happened
1 - Intentional Acts
I have a couple of things in my mind where I intentionally acted in a hurtful and spiteful manner where a more gracious stance could easily have been offered. One in particular has haunted my mind, and I suppose I should look into correcting the grievance. Trouble is, I'm not sure how or where to reach the individual.2 - Unintentional Acts
This is a tricky one because by definition I would not have taken much note of it. It's possible I've done things in life that were hurtful and I have no clue. I can't think of any striking examples of this. Sadly, most of my hurtful behavior has been intentional.3 - Miss Opportunities
You know, I don't really have any "regrets" that I haven't done things like skydiving, or been to Paris, or anything like that. I suppose that's a function of age; my having reached 47, those kinds of things are of less importance to me now than they would have been at age 20. Plus, I've done a whole bunch of things and therefore that urge may be partially or mostly satisfied.4 - Intentional Harms Inflicted
I also don't have any regrets about things like not becoming a doctor, or pursuing some different career path within our company. Where I am and the path I've gone to get here is, upon reflection, a remarkable blessing.
The one "missed opportunity" regret I have involves a girl. I married the first time too young and for the wrong reasons. And after getting married I met a girl who I came to love very much. I cared deeply for her. But I could do nothing about it, and in fact I did nothing about it. I often wonder what I missed. But then I think, "Can I really complain about where I am now with my lovely bride?" The answer is "no." So I usually shelve the regret about Kim. Still, I doubt I'll ever truly forget her.
I can think of a handful of things done to me in my vulnerable teenage years I wish had not been done. Some of them had downstream effects that shaped my life. While I wish they hadn't happened the way they did, it's not like I hold some kind of resentment about them. Perhaps a little, but not a lot.5 - Unintentional Harms Inflicted
This is the emotional minefield for me. In fact, I am sometimes tempted to recategorize some of these into the "intentional" bucket. This is where I feel the strongest -- yet most difficult -- call to forgiveness.6 - Missed Experiences
Ditto #5 ... they are in my mind connected.Still, all said, my regrets are few.
Why People Do Bad Things
The core of the problem is that people cannot agree on what "bad" is. What people will agree on is that they themselves have an understanding of what "bad" is, even if those understandings are not in agreement.
Yes, I agree. Very good. My next question would be ... is there any common thread that runs through everyone's concept of "bad?" My guess is there is. Quite a bit, would be my guess. The disagreement probably comes in the finer elements of the definitions.
I asked on the Chess Server why we break the Golden Rule, thinking that chess players are pretty smart .. their concensus was that it's broken because people are trying to get some kind of advantage over their fellow human being, getting "one up on your neighbor" -- some sort of hangover from natural selection/survival of the fittest, where organisms within a changing environment compete for scant resources.
Have you ever taken a moment and observed people's behavior at an all-you-can-eat buffet? (And maybe this is an American phenomenon, though I saw the same in Canada.) It's remarkable. A table spread with more food than the gathered crowd can possibly eat. No possibility of shortage or scarcity. And yet people assume an aggressive stance, doing subtle things to maximize their access to the food and minimize others.
Note: In Canada I witnessed a frenzy at a Chinese buffet. The server brought the crab legs out -- and here there was some scarcity, but only temporary as they were bringing more out on a frequent basis. A crowd gathered to snatch up the food. The server literally threw the tray of crab legs into the steam table from about three feet away. A dozen people rushed it, pushing others out of the way, grabbing handfuls of the crab legs with their hands. I stood from a distance and watched in stunned amazement.
But then, if that's true, then does my definition of evil mean that "life itself is evil"? ie. If what life does is break the Golden Rule, and if the breaking of the Golden Rule is evil, then is life evil?
So in summary it appears that while people can't agree on precisely what "bad" is, they agree that there is bad, and that most people engage in bad behavior from time to time.
My response to this is one that will not gain universal acceptance. But I offer it anyway. The Bible portrays the problem perfectly, in my mind: mankind is fallen. Created good, it has fallen away from God and become infected with this inclination towards selfishness, towards treating others as they would not like to be treated.
Life is not evil; fallen man is evil. Mankind needs a way to crawl out of the pit he's created. There are two ways to do that:
Very few people -- including myself, I fear -- really believe in #2.
Yes, I agree. Very good. My next question would be ... is there any common thread that runs through everyone's concept of "bad?" My guess is there is. Quite a bit, would be my guess. The disagreement probably comes in the finer elements of the definitions.
I asked on the Chess Server why we break the Golden Rule, thinking that chess players are pretty smart .. their concensus was that it's broken because people are trying to get some kind of advantage over their fellow human being, getting "one up on your neighbor" -- some sort of hangover from natural selection/survival of the fittest, where organisms within a changing environment compete for scant resources.
Have you ever taken a moment and observed people's behavior at an all-you-can-eat buffet? (And maybe this is an American phenomenon, though I saw the same in Canada.) It's remarkable. A table spread with more food than the gathered crowd can possibly eat. No possibility of shortage or scarcity. And yet people assume an aggressive stance, doing subtle things to maximize their access to the food and minimize others.
Note: In Canada I witnessed a frenzy at a Chinese buffet. The server brought the crab legs out -- and here there was some scarcity, but only temporary as they were bringing more out on a frequent basis. A crowd gathered to snatch up the food. The server literally threw the tray of crab legs into the steam table from about three feet away. A dozen people rushed it, pushing others out of the way, grabbing handfuls of the crab legs with their hands. I stood from a distance and watched in stunned amazement.
But then, if that's true, then does my definition of evil mean that "life itself is evil"? ie. If what life does is break the Golden Rule, and if the breaking of the Golden Rule is evil, then is life evil?
So in summary it appears that while people can't agree on precisely what "bad" is, they agree that there is bad, and that most people engage in bad behavior from time to time.
My response to this is one that will not gain universal acceptance. But I offer it anyway. The Bible portrays the problem perfectly, in my mind: mankind is fallen. Created good, it has fallen away from God and become infected with this inclination towards selfishness, towards treating others as they would not like to be treated.
Life is not evil; fallen man is evil. Mankind needs a way to crawl out of the pit he's created. There are two ways to do that:
- By man's own effort
- With God's assistance
Very few people -- including myself, I fear -- really believe in #2.
Bad
This would preclude the idea of "evil" being simply "bad" being taken to the extreme
The statement you made refers to what you think of as "bad". The core of the problem is that people cannot agree on what "bad" is. What people will agree on is that they themselves have an understanding of what "bad" is, even if those understandings are not in agreement.
This is where my idea of evil being the breaking of the Golden Rule comes from. I asked on the Chess Server why we break the Golden Rule, thinking that chess players are pretty smart .. their concensus was that it's broken because people are trying to get some kind of advantage over their fellow human being, getting "one up on your neighbor" -- some sort of hangover from natural selection/survival of the fittest, where organisms within a changing environment compete for scant resources.
But then, if that's true, then does my definition of evil mean that "life itself is evil"? ie. If what life does is break the Golden Rule, and if the breaking of the Golden Rule is evil, then is life evil?
+++
I don't know what my greatest regret is, I don't regret many of my mistakes, on the whole I view them as learning experiences. The mistakes I do regret are those where I treated others as I wouldn't like to have been treated myself. This was sometimes done innocently, in which case I just wished that I had avoided inflicting myself upon that person (I knew that I should have avoided the interaction usually - somehow) and sometimes deliberately, in which case I regretted that I had been mean. Do you know your biggest regret? I'm not sure any research has been done on the regrets of folk as they near death, it's a tense time after all -- I did a quick Google search and could only find the usual "I wish I had learned to play a musical instrument" or "Seen The Beatles" .. so those hits were focussed on what the individual had not taken an opportunity to experience in their life. I never had any of those regrets that I can recall. My biggest sadness was that I would not be there to help my daughter as she grew up but that wasn't a regret.
The statement you made refers to what you think of as "bad". The core of the problem is that people cannot agree on what "bad" is. What people will agree on is that they themselves have an understanding of what "bad" is, even if those understandings are not in agreement.
This is where my idea of evil being the breaking of the Golden Rule comes from. I asked on the Chess Server why we break the Golden Rule, thinking that chess players are pretty smart .. their concensus was that it's broken because people are trying to get some kind of advantage over their fellow human being, getting "one up on your neighbor" -- some sort of hangover from natural selection/survival of the fittest, where organisms within a changing environment compete for scant resources.
But then, if that's true, then does my definition of evil mean that "life itself is evil"? ie. If what life does is break the Golden Rule, and if the breaking of the Golden Rule is evil, then is life evil?
+++
I don't know what my greatest regret is, I don't regret many of my mistakes, on the whole I view them as learning experiences. The mistakes I do regret are those where I treated others as I wouldn't like to have been treated myself. This was sometimes done innocently, in which case I just wished that I had avoided inflicting myself upon that person (I knew that I should have avoided the interaction usually - somehow) and sometimes deliberately, in which case I regretted that I had been mean. Do you know your biggest regret? I'm not sure any research has been done on the regrets of folk as they near death, it's a tense time after all -- I did a quick Google search and could only find the usual "I wish I had learned to play a musical instrument" or "Seen The Beatles" .. so those hits were focussed on what the individual had not taken an opportunity to experience in their life. I never had any of those regrets that I can recall. My biggest sadness was that I would not be there to help my daughter as she grew up but that wasn't a regret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)