My favorite part of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is when Father Christmas comes with the hopeful news that Aslan is in Narnia, the White Witch's powers are fading, and the cold of winter is coming to an end. His gifts of weapons also are strikingly similar to the Armo(u)r of God. I was thinking a little about that book today(I'm a big fan of Clive Staples Lewis) and it was always hard for me as a young kid growing up in southern California to understand what the big deal was with being "always winter and never Christmas." I loved Christmas, but the thought of being anywhere it was snowing (in my young, naive mind) seemed far more jolly than any present. The experience and wisdom I've acquired in recent years (living in Utah) has helped me understand this terrible truth: Winter = Death. For most of the people who have ever lived, that is a very real fact. If you entered the season without a large reserve of food, firewood, and body fat, it was curtains for sure.
We don't have to worry about "making it through the winter" anymore; most of us will live through it even without redoubling our efforts, but for those of us who still have to walk to school in the snow and brown street slush, the winter weather is less than desirable. But go ask anybody what their favorite time of year is; they'll probably say "Christmas Time." Not only does Christmas negate the bad feelings for winter, it makes it "The most wonderful time of the year." C.S. Lewis clearly illustrates that truth: Christ doesn't only overcome the pain of sin and perdition to a point of neutrality, but to exaltation. I know that Jesus wasn't really born in the winter time, but maybe it's an appropriate analogy to make the celebration of His birth have the same effect on the year as His atonement has on our lives.
12.12.2007
Semantics
The most beneficial personal classification as far as distinction of truth is to be a realist with occasional appeal to nominalistic accusations of vague generality when circumstantially appropriate. Thus, authoritative status is preserved semantically while maintaining its value pragmatically.
12.08.2007
12.06.2007
MMMM... Felt it!
I saw a Discovery Channel special once about elephants that paint. At first I just thought it was kind of silly because I've actually been to a zoo where they had one of the elephants grab a paintbrush, dip it in paint, and splotch it on a sheet of paper. It wasn't a big deal; there was no real form or subject or anything, just random smears of color. I'm pretty sure the elephant couldn't even see what it was doing, but it was a cute trick. Then the program showed some of these paintings, and that they sold for more than $500! That's ridiculous! The paintings were totally bogus. the only variations in them were the colors the trainers gave them to use and the elephant that made them (Jojo's were all crazy scribbles, and Srisiam's were all vertical lines). I couldn't believe they were calling it art. There is no artistic ability there. There's no skill. The elephants are incapable of even understanding what they're trying to do; how could they ever be expected to improve? All they know is if they do a trick, they'll get a treat. But then the program explained that the money from the sales was used to help protect Asian Elephants (they're endangered). That's art! Back when I watched that special, it explained that all of the profit from the sales would go to this fund except for the cost of material, I just went on the website the show talked about again today, and even though the prices for the paintings have gone way down, they're only donating $30 a painting.
What do we mean when we classify something as "art"? I think that's a good example of how our language is being destroyed: everybody means something different. The other day I was playing with spilled pepper on a table in the cafeteria and made it look like a frog's head. If you call that art, what word are we going to use to classify the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? it's like the word "Love": If you tell everyone you love them, you can't tell anyone you love them. It's alright for something to be beautiful without calling it art. Art is more than just beautiful things, it's the beauty of beauty in all of its forms. Everyone just wants credit for things that they are even remotely involved in; you see something you like, and you've got to stick your finger in it. After all, you can't have art without an artist, right? But isn't the purpose of art to express the feelings one has felt more effectively than through words by providing a sensual means of experiencing the same emotion the artist experienced? And if that isn't the common consensus, shouldn't it be? How can you do that without experiencing emotion in the first place? There has to be passion! with that understanding, the value of "art" and merit of that classification is directly proportional to the effort and motivation involved.
In my opinion, some of the most harmful things that someone can do to society is to give credit when it isn't deserved, withhold credit where credit is due, and to think that you're the one who deserves the credit. I'm guilty of that often. I'm too quick to give credit to people who's motivation is completely extrinsic and monetarily based (giving only to get), and too slow to give credit for all beautiful things to the Real Artist. Seldom do we really deserve credit. Just because we sometimes get to stick are finger in some of the beauty we've been blessed to be a part of doesn't make us the artist. Doesn't it seem fitting, then, to make our imitations of Real Art focus on Him? Art is more than aesthetics (as far as the colloquial meaning of that word). the beauty of art comes from passion. The ultimate passion is expressed through understanding the beauty of God's creations, thus, expressing the beauty of our own existence (being created by God), we can create true beauty: art. This emulation of God's power to create is art. Everything has already been created without us. All we can do is imitate.
What do we mean when we classify something as "art"? I think that's a good example of how our language is being destroyed: everybody means something different. The other day I was playing with spilled pepper on a table in the cafeteria and made it look like a frog's head. If you call that art, what word are we going to use to classify the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? it's like the word "Love": If you tell everyone you love them, you can't tell anyone you love them. It's alright for something to be beautiful without calling it art. Art is more than just beautiful things, it's the beauty of beauty in all of its forms. Everyone just wants credit for things that they are even remotely involved in; you see something you like, and you've got to stick your finger in it. After all, you can't have art without an artist, right? But isn't the purpose of art to express the feelings one has felt more effectively than through words by providing a sensual means of experiencing the same emotion the artist experienced? And if that isn't the common consensus, shouldn't it be? How can you do that without experiencing emotion in the first place? There has to be passion! with that understanding, the value of "art" and merit of that classification is directly proportional to the effort and motivation involved.
In my opinion, some of the most harmful things that someone can do to society is to give credit when it isn't deserved, withhold credit where credit is due, and to think that you're the one who deserves the credit. I'm guilty of that often. I'm too quick to give credit to people who's motivation is completely extrinsic and monetarily based (giving only to get), and too slow to give credit for all beautiful things to the Real Artist. Seldom do we really deserve credit. Just because we sometimes get to stick are finger in some of the beauty we've been blessed to be a part of doesn't make us the artist. Doesn't it seem fitting, then, to make our imitations of Real Art focus on Him? Art is more than aesthetics (as far as the colloquial meaning of that word). the beauty of art comes from passion. The ultimate passion is expressed through understanding the beauty of God's creations, thus, expressing the beauty of our own existence (being created by God), we can create true beauty: art. This emulation of God's power to create is art. Everything has already been created without us. All we can do is imitate.
11.28.2007
Life is long and the world is huge
I've been learning the guitar. it's a very slow process, but I can tell I'm getting somewhere... sort of. My wonderfully soft model hands, though awesome, can't seem to do what my brain wants them to. Not only that, but the tips of the fingers on my left hand have become numb and calloused. All I want is to be way good right now and still keep my precious hands supple.
The reason some people are so good at the guitar is because they spend hours every day for years learning and practicing. I guess if it was something you could learn perfectly in a week, we wouldn't know any good guitar players because everyone would play at the same skill level. I haven't been fascinated with anyone's walking ability lately. Even though it's a pretty complicated task when you think about the balance and weight distribution involved, everyone does it to just about the same skill level. For the record, I do consider myself an exceptional walker. Now I listen to music more intently, paying attention to the skill required to play it (let alone write it) and I enjoy it more. Every day since I've been practicing, I hear a new song that I decide I have to learn to play. There are so many good musicians! I feel so small and insignificant compared to them, and those are only the ones I know about. There is so much out there that is bigger than me. it's kind of an exciting feeling. It's not a small world, no matter what Disney says. There's so much out there! So much to learn! It's a little overwhelming, but I've got plenty of time to learn how to play better, and the skill I acquire will be equal to the sacrifice I put into it. To play as well as I want to be able to might just cost a little more than the texture of my fingertips.
The reason some people are so good at the guitar is because they spend hours every day for years learning and practicing. I guess if it was something you could learn perfectly in a week, we wouldn't know any good guitar players because everyone would play at the same skill level. I haven't been fascinated with anyone's walking ability lately. Even though it's a pretty complicated task when you think about the balance and weight distribution involved, everyone does it to just about the same skill level. For the record, I do consider myself an exceptional walker. Now I listen to music more intently, paying attention to the skill required to play it (let alone write it) and I enjoy it more. Every day since I've been practicing, I hear a new song that I decide I have to learn to play. There are so many good musicians! I feel so small and insignificant compared to them, and those are only the ones I know about. There is so much out there that is bigger than me. it's kind of an exciting feeling. It's not a small world, no matter what Disney says. There's so much out there! So much to learn! It's a little overwhelming, but I've got plenty of time to learn how to play better, and the skill I acquire will be equal to the sacrifice I put into it. To play as well as I want to be able to might just cost a little more than the texture of my fingertips.
11.24.2007
TelescHope
Tonight is a full moon! I get really excited about these things lately. I probably went years without ever knowing the current phase of the moon, and now that the title of this silly blog is one of 'em, I could probably tell you at any given moment. cool little trick: if you go to the bottom of the right column and click on the words "Waxing Gibbous," you can see the current phase of the moon... even if it ain't a waxing gibbous. go figure.
This is how the obsession started:
Last year I bought one of those hip, new mp3 players called iPods. Part of the raging excitement about iPods is that you get to name them! (probably not true) I wanted my iPod to have an awesome name; it couldn't have my name in it (that rules out Alexplode), it had to be just one word ("this iPod is a bomb" is out, too), and not too extreme, either (Xtreme!). I settled on the name "Gibbous". It was one of those "say the fist thing that pops into your head" type decisions. So I decided to make the most of it to convince myself it was the best name I could have come up with: I named all my playlists with this lunar theme (Blue Moon, Crescent, Sea of Tranquility, etc.), and if you ask me, I'll probably try to prove that "Gibbous" is way better than your stupid iPod's name. Then when I started this blog, I thought it would be cool to use the same name and throw in a little twist by adding the word "Waxing" which just means that it is growing toward a full moon.
I think the moon is cool. I read a book that made me think about paying more attention to what's going on around me; half the time I can't tell you what day it is when asked. A lot of people have that ability, but it seems like it's usually wasted on knowing the stats of your favorite baseball team instead of the date your brother and sister-in-law's baby is due (sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'm pretty sure). It's kind of depressing when your schedule is measured by when your next assignment is due; babies are way more important. I think that comes from a mentality of life that is too defensive. I'm not making enough happen, so I only worry about fending off what's happening to me. When you're aware of what's going on around you, it's easier to be a part of what's going on. Isn't that what everyone wants anyway? Focusing too hard on the moment seems to take me out of it. If I can only fill my head with things beyond myself, maybe I'll be something worth focusing on.
This is how the obsession started:
Last year I bought one of those hip, new mp3 players called iPods. Part of the raging excitement about iPods is that you get to name them! (probably not true) I wanted my iPod to have an awesome name; it couldn't have my name in it (that rules out Alexplode), it had to be just one word ("this iPod is a bomb" is out, too), and not too extreme, either (Xtreme!). I settled on the name "Gibbous". It was one of those "say the fist thing that pops into your head" type decisions. So I decided to make the most of it to convince myself it was the best name I could have come up with: I named all my playlists with this lunar theme (Blue Moon, Crescent, Sea of Tranquility, etc.), and if you ask me, I'll probably try to prove that "Gibbous" is way better than your stupid iPod's name. Then when I started this blog, I thought it would be cool to use the same name and throw in a little twist by adding the word "Waxing" which just means that it is growing toward a full moon.
I think the moon is cool. I read a book that made me think about paying more attention to what's going on around me; half the time I can't tell you what day it is when asked. A lot of people have that ability, but it seems like it's usually wasted on knowing the stats of your favorite baseball team instead of the date your brother and sister-in-law's baby is due (sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'm pretty sure). It's kind of depressing when your schedule is measured by when your next assignment is due; babies are way more important. I think that comes from a mentality of life that is too defensive. I'm not making enough happen, so I only worry about fending off what's happening to me. When you're aware of what's going on around you, it's easier to be a part of what's going on. Isn't that what everyone wants anyway? Focusing too hard on the moment seems to take me out of it. If I can only fill my head with things beyond myself, maybe I'll be something worth focusing on.
11.21.2007
There, but for the grace of God, go I
Selflessness starts as merely selfishness with intelligent foresight. The natural man is only capable of hedonistic (self serving) motivation, but I believe that it is one of the defining characteristics of human beings to have the ability to be altruistic. We cannot find this ability within ourselves alone, but must receive it from an altruistic Source as a Spiritual Gift the scriptures like to call Charity. Because God is willing to bless us every chance we give Him to, the only price we need to pay is obedience, even if (and at first, inevitably) one's motivation for obedience is personal gain. In order to be worthy of the Spiritual Gift of Charity which is the power behind altruistic motivation, we must act in a pseudo-selfless way towards others through service. This preliminary form of hedonistic selflessness (an oxymoron) is probably better labeled as Intelligent Selfishness. Unintelligently selfish and greedy actions can only bring expiring self gratification. It's a simple principle that most people agree with, so why do so many people choose to be self-serving instead of self-giving? The only reason you would ever do anything harmful to yourself is because of ignorance or misunderstanding. The Natural Man never does anything he doesn't believe to be in his best interest. Of course, a lot of people's perception of what is in their best interest seems a little absurd and sometimes even perverted. Even if you do things that are obviously harmful to yourself, from biting your nails to smoking to suicide, it is done with the belief that the alternative would somehow be more painful physically or mentally. Even habits and addictions were first a choice. A big reason people struggle with making right choices is a lack of faith. A large part of faith is a logical deduction of the given proof that Jesus Christ, as an omniscient being, knows exactly what is most beneficial for you, and lets you know through his commandments. Therefore, righteousness = intelligence, and sin = foolishness.
The scriptures say that the glory of God is intelligence, or Light and Truth. That's the way revelation works: Your mind is quickened (that's the word the scriptures use to mean "enlivened" or "enlighten") by the Spirit, being filled with intelligence to be able to make the perfect choice independent of, and also specific to circumstance. The Spirit makes you smarter! The Spirit cannot affect you in a way that is contrary to this pattern and method. Even the "stupor of thought" is not confusion, but clarity in some other thing: that thing which is right, which will take your attention away from the thing which is wrong. You cannot receive revelation that will make you more confused. The Spirit cannot make you sad or feel guilty. That's the pain that comes with sin. You make yourself feel that way when you realize you are not following the light and truth the Spirit shows you. Alma Explains this very well in his conversion story: The power of the Devil racked his soul with eternal torment and the pains of a damned soul (not the pains of a spiritually enlightened soul). As soon as he called upon Christ, he was filled with joy as exceeding as was his pain. That's the Spirit! Before he was able to be filled with the Spirit, he was filled with pain, but as soon as he made the choice that allowed the Spirit to fill him (the same way we become worthy for personal revelation), he was filled with joy. Therefore, the lack of the Spirit = sorrow and confusion, and the presence of the Spirit = joy and clarity.
It's easy to "put your life in God's hands" and just want him to make all your decisions for you. But that defeats the purpose of being alive. God's not going to make our choices for us. He's not going to take away our responsibility and make everything easy and painless. That was some other guy's plan. Life becomes easy when we keep his commandments not because He takes away the trial, but because he teaches us how to grow so it isn't a trial. Jesus' burden isn't light because his life was a free of responsibility and pain, but because he's strong enough to carry any burden. It does us no good to just carry our burden for us. By the power of His Spirit (Intelligence/Light and Truth), we can grow enough to carry it ourselves, and it becomes easy because we become stronger. As we use the intelligence we are blessed with to be intelligently selfish, The Lord blesses us with Charity. We are then capable of doing good and serving others without any thought of reward, not even blessings. Though the blessings will come, as truly selfless and altruistic beings, they are not the motivation for our charitable actions. This is what it means to truly be and Agent, and act instead of being acted upon.
The scriptures say that the glory of God is intelligence, or Light and Truth. That's the way revelation works: Your mind is quickened (that's the word the scriptures use to mean "enlivened" or "enlighten") by the Spirit, being filled with intelligence to be able to make the perfect choice independent of, and also specific to circumstance. The Spirit makes you smarter! The Spirit cannot affect you in a way that is contrary to this pattern and method. Even the "stupor of thought" is not confusion, but clarity in some other thing: that thing which is right, which will take your attention away from the thing which is wrong. You cannot receive revelation that will make you more confused. The Spirit cannot make you sad or feel guilty. That's the pain that comes with sin. You make yourself feel that way when you realize you are not following the light and truth the Spirit shows you. Alma Explains this very well in his conversion story: The power of the Devil racked his soul with eternal torment and the pains of a damned soul (not the pains of a spiritually enlightened soul). As soon as he called upon Christ, he was filled with joy as exceeding as was his pain. That's the Spirit! Before he was able to be filled with the Spirit, he was filled with pain, but as soon as he made the choice that allowed the Spirit to fill him (the same way we become worthy for personal revelation), he was filled with joy. Therefore, the lack of the Spirit = sorrow and confusion, and the presence of the Spirit = joy and clarity.
It's easy to "put your life in God's hands" and just want him to make all your decisions for you. But that defeats the purpose of being alive. God's not going to make our choices for us. He's not going to take away our responsibility and make everything easy and painless. That was some other guy's plan. Life becomes easy when we keep his commandments not because He takes away the trial, but because he teaches us how to grow so it isn't a trial. Jesus' burden isn't light because his life was a free of responsibility and pain, but because he's strong enough to carry any burden. It does us no good to just carry our burden for us. By the power of His Spirit (Intelligence/Light and Truth), we can grow enough to carry it ourselves, and it becomes easy because we become stronger. As we use the intelligence we are blessed with to be intelligently selfish, The Lord blesses us with Charity. We are then capable of doing good and serving others without any thought of reward, not even blessings. Though the blessings will come, as truly selfless and altruistic beings, they are not the motivation for our charitable actions. This is what it means to truly be and Agent, and act instead of being acted upon.
11.13.2007
It justicen't fair
I hurt a friend's feelings and I didn't even know how. I said something that was meant to be a compliment, but it didn't go the way I planned at all. At first I wanted to justify it, after all, I intended well, but no matter how much I tried to convince myself I wasn't at fault, it didn't change the way she felt. It stayed on my mind all day, and I felt terrible until I sincerely apologized to her face (action= proof of good intention). She surprised me when she said she didn't know why it made her uncomfortable and was quick to forgive. I hope I can be as honest with myself as she is. Just because she couldn't explain it didn't mean it didn't affect her.
Reality is more than logic. We can spend our time convincing ourselves that we're doing everything right because it makes sense and is just, but that doesn't guarantee innocence. It's easy to fall under the misconception that we can make ourselves perfect, and our logic and reason are going to do it for us. we like to think that we're working our way up the ladder toward godhood, and our sense of justice is the key. It's the key alright, but not to godhood. If we were left to ourselves, none of us would make it out of Hell, thanks to justice. It's a good thing life isn't fair. The fact of the matter is: however fair we may be, however just, we can't save ourselves even a little bit. We're all at the bottom rung, no matter how awesome we think we are. All we can do is jump on the elevator by showing Christ we accept him by faith, repentance, and living the way he commands us to; by loving. He doesn't just make up the difference, He takes us the whole way! That's what the Atonement is all about: The elevating power of love. When we love, we don't care how fair things are for us, we care how others feel. We can't hold people to our own standards, to our perfect ideals if it's impossible for us to be there yet. It's alright if people are unjustly affected by you. It's ok if you aren't perfectly just yourself. Even if you see your own faults, it's important to be confident and secure as long as it doesn't lull you into idle complacency. We're taught to anxiously do good not so we can be avenged or vindicated of injustice, but because loving people like Christ loves us (lots and lots of mercy) is that elevator door. Until we are motivated by love and not justice, we can't get on.
Reality is more than logic. We can spend our time convincing ourselves that we're doing everything right because it makes sense and is just, but that doesn't guarantee innocence. It's easy to fall under the misconception that we can make ourselves perfect, and our logic and reason are going to do it for us. we like to think that we're working our way up the ladder toward godhood, and our sense of justice is the key. It's the key alright, but not to godhood. If we were left to ourselves, none of us would make it out of Hell, thanks to justice. It's a good thing life isn't fair. The fact of the matter is: however fair we may be, however just, we can't save ourselves even a little bit. We're all at the bottom rung, no matter how awesome we think we are. All we can do is jump on the elevator by showing Christ we accept him by faith, repentance, and living the way he commands us to; by loving. He doesn't just make up the difference, He takes us the whole way! That's what the Atonement is all about: The elevating power of love. When we love, we don't care how fair things are for us, we care how others feel. We can't hold people to our own standards, to our perfect ideals if it's impossible for us to be there yet. It's alright if people are unjustly affected by you. It's ok if you aren't perfectly just yourself. Even if you see your own faults, it's important to be confident and secure as long as it doesn't lull you into idle complacency. We're taught to anxiously do good not so we can be avenged or vindicated of injustice, but because loving people like Christ loves us (lots and lots of mercy) is that elevator door. Until we are motivated by love and not justice, we can't get on.
Drawing toward victory! (DTH follow-up)
*Note: in order to understand this post, please read "Drawing toward humiliation" first.
I got my Philosophy exam back, and to my great surprise and wonderment I got a 23/25! Not only that, but the professor mentioned that the average on the exam was a 19 and that the highest score was a 23! I'm pretty sure someone else shares that high score, but of all the other exams I saw, the highest was 21. Out of 6 points possible on the universe question (prompt #4) that I sketched, I got a 5 because I didn't a explain the effects of 2 of Aristotle's 4 causes even though they were accurately represented. The average score for #4 was 3.5/6.
So there you have it! As I sat there with my graded exam, the embarrassment of having done it incorrectly transformed to guilt. I had spent so much less time than everyone else on prompt #4 and received a better grade than the students seated near me who had written pages explaining the effects of aether on the superlunar universe. I didn't want anyone to see my grade. I hid it in my backpack and tried to participate in some of the conversations of disappointment with my classmates.
I wonder how I can apply that to my life. I obviously presented something that was exceptional, as far as proof of understanding, but I shied away from the norm in format. I wish I could say that I did it on purpose, but the lack of instruction forced me to be unique. I don't know if the professor gave further instruction that I missed, or if my assumption that I had missed it is the cause, but my conclusion is thus: It doesn't matter how other people do things; trust yourself and be confident in doing things the best way you can. Of course, it's not very wise to blind yourself in order to be forced into uniqueness. You stand much taller on other people's shoulders; to do anything well, you must be exposed to good examples (books, art, music, lives, etc.). You need to take chances and give them your best shot.
My brother wants to start a grilled pizza restaurant. At first I was skeptical, but I went to his grilled pizza party the other day, and it knocked my socks off! We all made our own with the provided ingredients. I made one with a cheese sauce, guacamole, steak, and mushrooms. It was so good that in the process of eating it, I chomped a chunk out of my cheek (it hurt like crazy, and my cheek is still a little swollen, but it made the steak taste a little more rare... which was nice). I guess the point is: he knows what he wants and he's good at it. Who am I to think that just because it's a little risky and different that it's not a good idea? You miss every shot you don't take. Maybe we just need to get used to the feeling of missing the shots we actually do take.
I got my Philosophy exam back, and to my great surprise and wonderment I got a 23/25! Not only that, but the professor mentioned that the average on the exam was a 19 and that the highest score was a 23! I'm pretty sure someone else shares that high score, but of all the other exams I saw, the highest was 21. Out of 6 points possible on the universe question (prompt #4) that I sketched, I got a 5 because I didn't a explain the effects of 2 of Aristotle's 4 causes even though they were accurately represented. The average score for #4 was 3.5/6.
So there you have it! As I sat there with my graded exam, the embarrassment of having done it incorrectly transformed to guilt. I had spent so much less time than everyone else on prompt #4 and received a better grade than the students seated near me who had written pages explaining the effects of aether on the superlunar universe. I didn't want anyone to see my grade. I hid it in my backpack and tried to participate in some of the conversations of disappointment with my classmates.
I wonder how I can apply that to my life. I obviously presented something that was exceptional, as far as proof of understanding, but I shied away from the norm in format. I wish I could say that I did it on purpose, but the lack of instruction forced me to be unique. I don't know if the professor gave further instruction that I missed, or if my assumption that I had missed it is the cause, but my conclusion is thus: It doesn't matter how other people do things; trust yourself and be confident in doing things the best way you can. Of course, it's not very wise to blind yourself in order to be forced into uniqueness. You stand much taller on other people's shoulders; to do anything well, you must be exposed to good examples (books, art, music, lives, etc.). You need to take chances and give them your best shot.
My brother wants to start a grilled pizza restaurant. At first I was skeptical, but I went to his grilled pizza party the other day, and it knocked my socks off! We all made our own with the provided ingredients. I made one with a cheese sauce, guacamole, steak, and mushrooms. It was so good that in the process of eating it, I chomped a chunk out of my cheek (it hurt like crazy, and my cheek is still a little swollen, but it made the steak taste a little more rare... which was nice). I guess the point is: he knows what he wants and he's good at it. Who am I to think that just because it's a little risky and different that it's not a good idea? You miss every shot you don't take. Maybe we just need to get used to the feeling of missing the shots we actually do take.
11.09.2007
I think we'd see the beauty
I got a flat tire fixed yesterday. the guy who fixed it for me was so nice. I didn't even talk with him that much; the few things that were said were just quick questions and comments. It wasn't that he gave me compliments or even that he did it for free (well, that probably had a little to do with it), but the way he talked to me made getting a flat tire fixed a good experience. I've been in similar situations, where almost the exact same words were exchanged, but they were just experiences. I could just tell that this man was a happy person, and it made me happy.
Every day, I see people in expensive suits, with expensive wristwatches, selling expensive things, walking around like they're important (and maybe they are), and sometimes I can't help but feel sorry for some of them because they don't look very happy. They spend so much time trying to turn people into money that their world becomes very lonely; it's hard to have a conversation with a dollar bill. This man works at an auto shop, he was wearing a dirty, gray jumpsuit, and he had dirt and grease all over his face and hands, but I kind of envied him. Not that I don't consider myself a happy person, but I wonder if people can see it in me as much as I saw it in him. When you're happy, you treat people well, or maybe when you treat people well, you're happy. it's probably both. I think that's a good cycle to jump into.
It's easy to forget how even the little things we do affect other people. The way we look at someone can make their day a little happier or just that much worse. I think that's reason enough to smile more. We can feel when someone cares about us, even when we've never met them. I think that's reason enough to care more.
Bright Eyes-Bowl of Oranges
Every day, I see people in expensive suits, with expensive wristwatches, selling expensive things, walking around like they're important (and maybe they are), and sometimes I can't help but feel sorry for some of them because they don't look very happy. They spend so much time trying to turn people into money that their world becomes very lonely; it's hard to have a conversation with a dollar bill. This man works at an auto shop, he was wearing a dirty, gray jumpsuit, and he had dirt and grease all over his face and hands, but I kind of envied him. Not that I don't consider myself a happy person, but I wonder if people can see it in me as much as I saw it in him. When you're happy, you treat people well, or maybe when you treat people well, you're happy. it's probably both. I think that's a good cycle to jump into.
It's easy to forget how even the little things we do affect other people. The way we look at someone can make their day a little happier or just that much worse. I think that's reason enough to smile more. We can feel when someone cares about us, even when we've never met them. I think that's reason enough to care more.
Bright Eyes-Bowl of Oranges
11.08.2007
Lost the day waiting...
I've already written most of the things that have been on my mind lately, so posts may be a lot less frequent than they have been. This one will be focused on tying some of the others together.
I spend a lot of time wishing something grand would cross my path. If something good happens to me, that might just be enough to make me happy. All my efforts are wasted waiting. Lately I've been thinking a lot about why I'm uncomfortable with the person I've become so far. I know that's normal and even healthy if you deal with it in an optimistic way; there's a lot of room for progress toward infinite perfection. However, my discontent doesn't come from the regret of not having gone places or even the lack of entertaining opportunities, it comes from realizing I could have done more; I could have created more; I could have become more.
Of course, worrying about the "could have's" doesn't solve anything. I need to focus on the can's. My mom commented on my "Rhymes with boomerang" post, encouraging me that it's never too late to learn how to play the guitar. I guess that's true about anything. I'm sure you could have been better at it, whatever that may be, had you started earlier, but life's long and good intentions are proven by realizing them.
It's even scientifically true that "you are what you eat." In possibly an even more scientific way, I also think that "you are what you create." That follows the same principle that what you think, you say, what you say, you do, and what you do, you are. If you don't create anything, you don't become anything. The glory if God is His creations, and the happiness of His kingdom is sharing in that glory. The closest way we can emulate God is through creation, in a very literal (and for that reason, sacred) way, through having children, but also in other, more figurative (which I also feel are sacred) ways such as music, art, poetry, writing, ideas, opinions, and even friendships.
The way you can be in control of your happiness is by being in control of what makes you happy (duh). I was talking with my friend yesterday about the difference between depending on other people to control your happiness, and letting other people be a source of your happiness. life is relationships. when you depend on other people to make you happy, it's completely one sided. They become means to an end; assets to your pleasure, placeholders and positions. You can't really love them even though you need them. but when you let other people be a source of your happiness, it's your responsibility. You can be happy through serving them. You really learn to love them because love is defined by how closely your emotions are influenced by those of the other person; when they are happy, you are happy. Lust is an experience, but Love is a creation. The way you feel about people is your responsibility. You can't find the one you love until you serve the ones you find. You can't just wait for love to cross your path; it's not just an experience. You have to create it.
I spend a lot of time wishing something grand would cross my path. If something good happens to me, that might just be enough to make me happy. All my efforts are wasted waiting. Lately I've been thinking a lot about why I'm uncomfortable with the person I've become so far. I know that's normal and even healthy if you deal with it in an optimistic way; there's a lot of room for progress toward infinite perfection. However, my discontent doesn't come from the regret of not having gone places or even the lack of entertaining opportunities, it comes from realizing I could have done more; I could have created more; I could have become more.
Of course, worrying about the "could have's" doesn't solve anything. I need to focus on the can's. My mom commented on my "Rhymes with boomerang" post, encouraging me that it's never too late to learn how to play the guitar. I guess that's true about anything. I'm sure you could have been better at it, whatever that may be, had you started earlier, but life's long and good intentions are proven by realizing them.
It's even scientifically true that "you are what you eat." In possibly an even more scientific way, I also think that "you are what you create." That follows the same principle that what you think, you say, what you say, you do, and what you do, you are. If you don't create anything, you don't become anything. The glory if God is His creations, and the happiness of His kingdom is sharing in that glory. The closest way we can emulate God is through creation, in a very literal (and for that reason, sacred) way, through having children, but also in other, more figurative (which I also feel are sacred) ways such as music, art, poetry, writing, ideas, opinions, and even friendships.
The way you can be in control of your happiness is by being in control of what makes you happy (duh). I was talking with my friend yesterday about the difference between depending on other people to control your happiness, and letting other people be a source of your happiness. life is relationships. when you depend on other people to make you happy, it's completely one sided. They become means to an end; assets to your pleasure, placeholders and positions. You can't really love them even though you need them. but when you let other people be a source of your happiness, it's your responsibility. You can be happy through serving them. You really learn to love them because love is defined by how closely your emotions are influenced by those of the other person; when they are happy, you are happy. Lust is an experience, but Love is a creation. The way you feel about people is your responsibility. You can't find the one you love until you serve the ones you find. You can't just wait for love to cross your path; it's not just an experience. You have to create it.
11.05.2007
Quotation justification
I think it's funny when people use quotations like they are automatically point-proving statements. As if just because someone said something sometime makes it true. I don't know about you, but I have said a lot of stupid things in my life that right now I sure am glad aren't true. I also know a lot of people that have said some ridiculous things. Someone once told me that you should never quote somebody if you can't remember exactly who it is you're quoting. Well, take that. Anyway, maybe that means that you should always know how to correctly cite what you quote, or (and this is the way I like to think of it) you can just speak for yourself, and anyone who helped you think the way you do because of the things they've said doesn't really need to be brought up; make it your own! Here's the deal: we don't have that many words, there have been a lot of people, and people say a lot of things. Therefore, whatever you say has probably already been said. You don't need to waste your time finding out all of the people who have already said what you're saying in attempts to prove that you don't think for yourself. Maybe it helps if you want to show that someone else shares your opinion, but I'd like to think that my ideas and opinions are strong enough on their own, without the quotation crutches.
Oftentimes, after saying something funny or interesting, I am asked: "what's that from?" Well, what if it's from me? Can you believe that I came up with that on my own, right here, on the spot?! But that's never assumed. I just never get the credit I think I deserve: congratulations for thinking, I guess. That's just the problem: why do we always have to give credit for things? We're all so good at evaluating and critiquing and comparing and score keeping and grading and judging that we think we have to do it in every conversation. Who cares?! Don't worry Alex, there are enough people throwing out judgments for you to feel like you have to make your own. But because I can, here's one:
I was told today (as I have heard countless times before) and I quote: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." I don't agree. Of course, thinking of things that way helps people to be a more productive. So, as far as intention (which apparently isn't good enough), it's not bad, but as far as my understanding, real and pure intention is characterized by its realization. I'm pretty sure that the way a lot of people understand the quotation is mostly true, but what they deem a "good intention" is just a little too liberal for me. I mean, as far as eternal destination, "...The Lord looketh on the heart." (God said that one, by the way, and I'll prove it: 1st Samuel 16:7), so good intention is good enough. Who said that pretending to want to do something and then not doing it was a good intention? That's a bad intention in my book (Hale, Alex. Alex's Book of Intentions, Random House, 2023). I just pretended that the person was telling me that dishonest intentions don't prove anything, and I was able to agree. Because when it really comes down to it, I shouldn't be so critical of people who like to quote things.
Unquote.
Oftentimes, after saying something funny or interesting, I am asked: "what's that from?" Well, what if it's from me? Can you believe that I came up with that on my own, right here, on the spot?! But that's never assumed. I just never get the credit I think I deserve: congratulations for thinking, I guess. That's just the problem: why do we always have to give credit for things? We're all so good at evaluating and critiquing and comparing and score keeping and grading and judging that we think we have to do it in every conversation. Who cares?! Don't worry Alex, there are enough people throwing out judgments for you to feel like you have to make your own. But because I can, here's one:
I was told today (as I have heard countless times before) and I quote: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." I don't agree. Of course, thinking of things that way helps people to be a more productive. So, as far as intention (which apparently isn't good enough), it's not bad, but as far as my understanding, real and pure intention is characterized by its realization. I'm pretty sure that the way a lot of people understand the quotation is mostly true, but what they deem a "good intention" is just a little too liberal for me. I mean, as far as eternal destination, "...The Lord looketh on the heart." (God said that one, by the way, and I'll prove it: 1st Samuel 16:7), so good intention is good enough. Who said that pretending to want to do something and then not doing it was a good intention? That's a bad intention in my book (Hale, Alex. Alex's Book of Intentions, Random House, 2023). I just pretended that the person was telling me that dishonest intentions don't prove anything, and I was able to agree. Because when it really comes down to it, I shouldn't be so critical of people who like to quote things.
Unquote.
11.02.2007
Rhymes with "boomerang"
For the last couple of weeks, I've had a couple of things on my mind that I've decided I really need to do: write a song, and whittle a boomerang. I haven't made any progress on either of these goals. If I write a song, it's got to be way awesome. At least to me, anyway. I'm not trying to prove myself to anybody but myself, but I won't have my own approval unless other people approve. That's why it has to be awesome. I kind of feel like I don't have anything to start from; I've never written a song before, and the only words I have in my head so far, that I want to put in a song, are "caught her eyes" to either be rhymed with or used in place of "cauterize". That's all I got. weeks... I've been thinking about this for weeks, mind you. I listen to a lot of music; I'm listening to music right now, as a matter of fact. Music is a big part of my life, that's why I want to write a song so bad.
The problems are as follows: 1) Every time I try to think of a tune, the only tunes that come into my head are songs that have already been written, and are only in there 'cause I listen to them a lot. 2) Every time I try to think of the words, ...cauterize. 3) I don't own a guitar, nor do I know how to play one. Problem #3 seems to be an adventure within itself. I've postponed learning to play the guitar so long, while listening to a lot of very good guitar players, that to start now is very frustrating; I want to be good at it already. And guitars are expensive... and the strings make my fingers numb. I realize that you don't necessarily need a guitar to write a song, but I need to be able to perform prospective song and pianos are even more expensive than guitars. Plus, you can't carry pianos around that easily... unless it's like a keytar, and I decided long ago to steer clear of that scene. I also realize that "dude playing the guitar" is a little cliché, but the thing that makes that ridiculous is when dude plays somebody else's song, especially when that "somebody else" happens to be Chris Carrabba or Jack Johnson, and they grabbed their guitar to woo the lady types.
Possible remedies for previously stated problems (I'll start with #3 because that's the biggest one): 3) Suck it up. Two of my brothers taught themselves to play the guitar, and are actually pretty good. My older brother, Alan, even writes songs which I think are excellent. There might even be a couple of guitars just lying around at my parents' house that nobody is using. I'll just take one of those back with me when I visit for Thanks Giving. 1) I'll probably only start thinking of original tunes when I'm learning how to play. 2) ... pasteurize...?
I don't think I need to explain whittling a boomerang to you. Duh.
The problems are as follows: 1) Every time I try to think of a tune, the only tunes that come into my head are songs that have already been written, and are only in there 'cause I listen to them a lot. 2) Every time I try to think of the words, ...cauterize. 3) I don't own a guitar, nor do I know how to play one. Problem #3 seems to be an adventure within itself. I've postponed learning to play the guitar so long, while listening to a lot of very good guitar players, that to start now is very frustrating; I want to be good at it already. And guitars are expensive... and the strings make my fingers numb. I realize that you don't necessarily need a guitar to write a song, but I need to be able to perform prospective song and pianos are even more expensive than guitars. Plus, you can't carry pianos around that easily... unless it's like a keytar, and I decided long ago to steer clear of that scene. I also realize that "dude playing the guitar" is a little cliché, but the thing that makes that ridiculous is when dude plays somebody else's song, especially when that "somebody else" happens to be Chris Carrabba or Jack Johnson, and they grabbed their guitar to woo the lady types.
Possible remedies for previously stated problems (I'll start with #3 because that's the biggest one): 3) Suck it up. Two of my brothers taught themselves to play the guitar, and are actually pretty good. My older brother, Alan, even writes songs which I think are excellent. There might even be a couple of guitars just lying around at my parents' house that nobody is using. I'll just take one of those back with me when I visit for Thanks Giving. 1) I'll probably only start thinking of original tunes when I'm learning how to play. 2) ... pasteurize...?
I don't think I need to explain whittling a boomerang to you. Duh.
11.01.2007
Heartbeats (LLL addendum)
I get very discouraged when people don't respond the way I think they should to the situations I throw them into. I get so focused on the results that I want that I forget about their wants. That's silly of me. I was talking to a very good friend today about my frustrations, and he helped me realize that I can't be so focused on myself. It's interesting how that works: the more you focus on getting what you want in relationships, the less likely you are to get it. I think that's because relationships are life. Not because having a lot of friends is the measure of happiness, but because real happiness is based on your ability to love people. Love is concern for others. When you're focused on yourself, you're missing the point of being in relationships.
I've been in quite a few romantic relationships (or at least quasi-relationships) in the past couple of years and I've come to an interesting conclusion: The more I put my heart into it and risk vulnerability, focusing on the desires of the other person instead of my own, the more resolve I have to put everything into the next relationship when that one doesn't work out. You'd think that putting it all on the line would make you bitter and timid if it didn't work out, but from my experience, it's the opposite. I remember the times my motives were self-serving. I wasn't able to make myself vulnerable because I was focused on my own comfort. I still feel bitter and uneasy about some of those relationships. The few relationships I've been in where I can honestly say my motivations were completely pure are the ones in which I was able to love more, and also the ones that hurt the least when they were over. Even though the title of "girlfriend" was removed, they were more to me than the position, and I was able to continue caring about them as a friend. I never had to "get over" them because they were more to me than just the way they made me feel.
Every relationship effects the type of person you become. If your intentions are pure and you react positively, no matter how it ends up, it will have been a good experience that makes you better. Don't get over what defines you: the people you fill your life with. Life is not about using people to reach your desired ends, it's about loving people in the process of getting there. No time spent risking vulnerability, putting your heart on the line or showing genuine affection, no time loving is ever wasted time. I've regretted every time I've hated, but I've never regretted loving.
I've been in quite a few romantic relationships (or at least quasi-relationships) in the past couple of years and I've come to an interesting conclusion: The more I put my heart into it and risk vulnerability, focusing on the desires of the other person instead of my own, the more resolve I have to put everything into the next relationship when that one doesn't work out. You'd think that putting it all on the line would make you bitter and timid if it didn't work out, but from my experience, it's the opposite. I remember the times my motives were self-serving. I wasn't able to make myself vulnerable because I was focused on my own comfort. I still feel bitter and uneasy about some of those relationships. The few relationships I've been in where I can honestly say my motivations were completely pure are the ones in which I was able to love more, and also the ones that hurt the least when they were over. Even though the title of "girlfriend" was removed, they were more to me than the position, and I was able to continue caring about them as a friend. I never had to "get over" them because they were more to me than just the way they made me feel.
Every relationship effects the type of person you become. If your intentions are pure and you react positively, no matter how it ends up, it will have been a good experience that makes you better. Don't get over what defines you: the people you fill your life with. Life is not about using people to reach your desired ends, it's about loving people in the process of getting there. No time spent risking vulnerability, putting your heart on the line or showing genuine affection, no time loving is ever wasted time. I've regretted every time I've hated, but I've never regretted loving.
10.31.2007
Drawing toward humiliation
I don't go to my history of philosophy class as much as I probably should. I like the subject, but it's so late in the afternoon (4:00-4:50), that usually by the time it rolls around, I've had enough time to decide on something else to do instead. So it's no surprise that I was a little confused about the instructions for our take-home exam we had this week, since my professor probably explained it on one of those days I played hooky. The exam had five essay prompts, and we were instructed to use about 3,000 words to answer them. One of the prompts, for example, was: "Explain the metaphysics and epistemology of Plato's Theory of Forms". I'm pretty sure I rocked that one. The confusion came on prompt #4: "Sketch Aristotle’s views about the nature of the universe in terms of the four causes and the distinction between the natural world and the supernatural world." I know what you're thinking: Draw a picture. That's what I thought too. Especially when Aristotle himself drew a picture to illustrate it. So I did. I typed the prompt at the top of the paper and left the rest of it blank so I could sketch Aristotle's universe after printing the rest of the paper. It was a pretty good sketch too! I did think it was a little odd; It seemed unusual for that type of assignment, and a little out of place, but that's what it said to do! When I got to class, everyone had their own six-to-eight-page, printed and stapled packets that they were so relieved to have completed, and were in the process of proudly sharing their unique answers and approximation to the suggested word count. Before I could even sit down in my usual, unassigned desk, a classmate shoved his own exam in my face, convinced I'd be astounded by his extraordinary achievement. It didn't take long to notice that his answer to #4 was not a picture, but an essay. Slightly confused, and mostly worried, I asked to see another student's exam claiming to be interested in her conclusion to the definition of Anaximander's "apeiron" (prompt #2). Also an essay in place of #4's expected hand-sketched universe. Even from a distance, as many students thumbed through their papers in self assurance, I noticed the absence of any artwork.
Sketch: 1. verb intrans. to draw or paint a sketch. 2. verb trans. to describe roughly or briefly or give the main points or summary of. (CRAP!)
Boy, did I feel sheepish! I sat quietly at my desk too embarrassed to show my paper to anyone. I had nothing to boast about. I hated mine. I wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible, but the professor didn't even collect the exams at the beginning of class. He went right into the lecture, so I put it back in my backpack. hiding it. protecting it from inquiry. My eyes were on the lecture, but my thoughts were staring at my backpack; at my secret shame. After an hour of futile worry and inaudible, nervous laughter, I placed my paper on the pile of unblemished, sketchless exams at the front table, and left the classroom. I walked more quickly than usual in attempt to escape the humiliation that would inevitably take place in some grading office within the next couple of weeks. As if my distance would protect me. My physical anonymity would only last until the exams were returned. Judgment passed in red pen. Who knows, maybe I'm the only one who did it right. Fingers crossed!
Sketch: 1. verb intrans. to draw or paint a sketch. 2. verb trans. to describe roughly or briefly or give the main points or summary of. (CRAP!)
Boy, did I feel sheepish! I sat quietly at my desk too embarrassed to show my paper to anyone. I had nothing to boast about. I hated mine. I wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible, but the professor didn't even collect the exams at the beginning of class. He went right into the lecture, so I put it back in my backpack. hiding it. protecting it from inquiry. My eyes were on the lecture, but my thoughts were staring at my backpack; at my secret shame. After an hour of futile worry and inaudible, nervous laughter, I placed my paper on the pile of unblemished, sketchless exams at the front table, and left the classroom. I walked more quickly than usual in attempt to escape the humiliation that would inevitably take place in some grading office within the next couple of weeks. As if my distance would protect me. My physical anonymity would only last until the exams were returned. Judgment passed in red pen. Who knows, maybe I'm the only one who did it right. Fingers crossed!
10.29.2007
Quaestiones Disputatio
I got in an argument recently that was extremely frustrating. It wasn't even in person. not even on the phone. it was online, for goodness' sake! I think that's what bothered me to begin with. It's hard enough to communicate what you really feel when you're looking at the person and they can hear you and respond immediately. But that's still not the frustrating part. No matter how logical and honest my answers and explanations were, this person continued to accuse me of things that either weren't true, or obviously misunderstood. Even after clarification and interpretation of intentions, no progress was made, in fact, it was more regressive than anything (who's going backward?). I realized that resolution was not this person's motive; it was justification. There was no intention of understanding the other side, and I got caught up in it too! I felt silly for even getting involved in it and started to see my own selfish intentions to "win" the argument (for sake of score keeping and one-up-manship, I'm pretty sure I won, anyway), so i decided to just leave it be. It was easy to see that no good would come of continuing, even if I was right.
Isn't that usually the case with arguments? Can you ever think of a time when you won an argument and then felt like you achieved what you were arguing for? I can think of a lot of arguments I at least think I won, but I never felt good about it afterward because the "loser" never admits to losing. In arguments where even the smallest part of my motivation is to win the argument, I never feel satisfied unless the person with whom I argued also acknowledges my victory. In the spirit of competition there is always a loser. Even when merely self proclaimed, there is seldom a winner. In the rare occasion that one wins an argument to the acknowledgment of everyone involved, what moral justification is there in self gratification? How can you ever feel good for bringing someone else down? You can't be motivated to win an argument without also being motivated to make your opponent lose. It is impossible to morally build yourself up while breaking others down.
When Jesus Commands the Nephites not to have disputations among them about the doctrines he gave, I don't think he's telling them not to talk about or even question them. I think he's commanding them (and us) not to argue about it. As I pointed out, argument seems to be more of a form of competition than truth seeking. I think sometimes we get confused in our attempts to be honest, too. Honesty isn't just saying facts. Half the truth is often a great lie. Oftentimes, our arguments are exactly that: half the truth, because we don't know enough to give all of it. I think honesty is saying, to the best of our ability, what is ultimately beneficial for the people we're talking to. Nothing that isn't motivated by love falls under that category. Saying kind truths is probably the closest to truth we are able to speak. What if our conversations were only focussed on establishing truth and honestly saying kind things to each other? I think there would be a lot fewer negative things to not talk about.
"Always love! Hate will get you every time.
Always love! Even when you want to fight."
-Nada Surf: Always Love
Isn't that usually the case with arguments? Can you ever think of a time when you won an argument and then felt like you achieved what you were arguing for? I can think of a lot of arguments I at least think I won, but I never felt good about it afterward because the "loser" never admits to losing. In arguments where even the smallest part of my motivation is to win the argument, I never feel satisfied unless the person with whom I argued also acknowledges my victory. In the spirit of competition there is always a loser. Even when merely self proclaimed, there is seldom a winner. In the rare occasion that one wins an argument to the acknowledgment of everyone involved, what moral justification is there in self gratification? How can you ever feel good for bringing someone else down? You can't be motivated to win an argument without also being motivated to make your opponent lose. It is impossible to morally build yourself up while breaking others down.
When Jesus Commands the Nephites not to have disputations among them about the doctrines he gave, I don't think he's telling them not to talk about or even question them. I think he's commanding them (and us) not to argue about it. As I pointed out, argument seems to be more of a form of competition than truth seeking. I think sometimes we get confused in our attempts to be honest, too. Honesty isn't just saying facts. Half the truth is often a great lie. Oftentimes, our arguments are exactly that: half the truth, because we don't know enough to give all of it. I think honesty is saying, to the best of our ability, what is ultimately beneficial for the people we're talking to. Nothing that isn't motivated by love falls under that category. Saying kind truths is probably the closest to truth we are able to speak. What if our conversations were only focussed on establishing truth and honestly saying kind things to each other? I think there would be a lot fewer negative things to not talk about.
"Always love! Hate will get you every time.
Always love! Even when you want to fight."
-Nada Surf: Always Love
10.27.2007
Love's Labour's Lost
I think people are forgetting how to love. Sometimes it feels like the only worth I have to people, even those I consider my good friends, is based on my achievements, accomplishments, and academic or monetary potential. This is what I like to call "friendship credentials". What's worse is I find myself qualifying my friends (or potential friends) the same way. It's an easy way to evaluate whether someone can be beneficial to you as a friend. As if people were assets, or objects, or possessions. How dehumanizing! That's not love! Friends aren't positions that can just be replaced like a burnt-out lightbulb! People are people for heaven's sake! Love is more than actions. It's more than words, however cliché that is. It's a spiritual unity, however silly that sounds. Whatever is spiritual is eternal!
We live in a compatibility focused world. People have to be "compatible" with us to deserve our time and attention, I guess. Nobody thinks about what they need to do to be compatible themselves. Whatever it takes to escape personal responsibility. If I don't get along with someone, it's obviously their fault. Right? We are commanded to love everyone. I don't think that means that we're commanded to just distantly be fond of humans. Jesus Christ doesn't love me because I happen to fall under the same genus. He also doesn't love me based on my credentials (thank goodness). There's something more. What is it that he knows about me that lets him love me perfectly? Well that's just it: He doesn't just "know about" me, he knows me! With a little bit of thought about who we really are, it's easy to understand that we are something more than we give ourselves credit for. Are we able to see that in each other. Wouldn't that be the ultimate compatibility? Who isn't compatible with someone who feels personally responsible and motivated to really know you enough to really love you regardless of your credentials? I sure hope I am. Is there anyone who doesn't deserve that from me? can I be compatible with anyone? Anyone who has that same motivation, at least. In that case, any other deterrent can't be anything but superficial. I want to be the type of person who can be a friend with anyone, not just a replaceable friend, not a place holder.
We live in a compatibility focused world. People have to be "compatible" with us to deserve our time and attention, I guess. Nobody thinks about what they need to do to be compatible themselves. Whatever it takes to escape personal responsibility. If I don't get along with someone, it's obviously their fault. Right? We are commanded to love everyone. I don't think that means that we're commanded to just distantly be fond of humans. Jesus Christ doesn't love me because I happen to fall under the same genus. He also doesn't love me based on my credentials (thank goodness). There's something more. What is it that he knows about me that lets him love me perfectly? Well that's just it: He doesn't just "know about" me, he knows me! With a little bit of thought about who we really are, it's easy to understand that we are something more than we give ourselves credit for. Are we able to see that in each other. Wouldn't that be the ultimate compatibility? Who isn't compatible with someone who feels personally responsible and motivated to really know you enough to really love you regardless of your credentials? I sure hope I am. Is there anyone who doesn't deserve that from me? can I be compatible with anyone? Anyone who has that same motivation, at least. In that case, any other deterrent can't be anything but superficial. I want to be the type of person who can be a friend with anyone, not just a replaceable friend, not a place holder.
10.26.2007
There's been a accident...
Thorns hurt! I made the mistake of walking to a hot tub in my bare feet last night and got about infinity thorns in them. By the time I realized that what I was walking on was a little more than just really sharp gravel, it was too late. It's the worst when you have to do something more painful to escape the pain in which you already find yourself. With more abstract situations in life to which that same principle applies, like a bad relationship that you need to end, I'm sure it requires more moral resolve to consciously step on those figurative thorns, but for me in this very literal and specific application of that principle, I had no choice. Pure agony. After it was all done, I thought to myself: "what if I didn't make it?" not like the same type of "didn't make it" as in someone who gets attacked by sharks and doesn't "make it"; "An elephant sat on Bob last week, and he didn't make it." But what if the pain was so bad that I couldn't put any more weight on my feet? What if the pain was so unbearable that I fell down?! It would have been curtains for sure! so million thorns in my whole body... I don't think i would have made it. I've been laughing to myself all day at the thought. I imagine myself being very dramatic as I fall down, roll around, and start convulsing as consciousness leaves me. It's funny to think of myself as very fragile. I can't figure it out. I wish bad relationships were that humorous in retrospect.
10.25.2007
Come on Alex! You can do it!
Sometimes I think about what I'm doing at any given time and wonder "if a snapshot was taken of me at this moment, would it be accurate in illustrating 'Alex'?". It's hard for me to decide whether I mean what I want people to think of me, or if it's accurate to who I really am. I think about it sometimes to the point of influencing the way I walk around, or how I'm talking to people, when I really should just be listening to what they're saying to me. I usually forget people's names as soon as they tell them to me because I'm too focused on how I'm going to introduce myself.
Today the snapshot thought came to me while I was in my psychological statistics class. I was sitting sideways in my desk with one of my legs rested on the empty chair next to me, my book open to the wrong chapter on the desk of the aforementioned empty chair, my Ipod on my lap with one of the headphones in my left ear (the ear closest to the back wall as to not be detected easily), and I was jotting down what the professor was writing on the blackboard, most likely just to convince myself that I had a reason to be in class. The thought kind of made me laugh, but I immediately put my pod away, sat up straight, and tried to concentrate harder on what was going on. I don't think I'd want many people to see that picture of me. A good picture says a thousand pictures. I want to be proud of my Alex movie. So I spent the rest of my time in class thinking about taking important things more seriously and forgot to learn what I was in there for.
Conclusion: I am very subconsciously self conscious. I'm pretty sure that's an oxymoron, but it's the only way I can describe how I feel, which is apparently very important to me. I just want everyone's attention to be on me as much as mine is. is that too much to ask?! I start my bowling class in 20 minutes. good luck to me not worrying too much about how I look when I'm bowling so I can actually learn something.
Today the snapshot thought came to me while I was in my psychological statistics class. I was sitting sideways in my desk with one of my legs rested on the empty chair next to me, my book open to the wrong chapter on the desk of the aforementioned empty chair, my Ipod on my lap with one of the headphones in my left ear (the ear closest to the back wall as to not be detected easily), and I was jotting down what the professor was writing on the blackboard, most likely just to convince myself that I had a reason to be in class. The thought kind of made me laugh, but I immediately put my pod away, sat up straight, and tried to concentrate harder on what was going on. I don't think I'd want many people to see that picture of me. A good picture says a thousand pictures. I want to be proud of my Alex movie. So I spent the rest of my time in class thinking about taking important things more seriously and forgot to learn what I was in there for.
Conclusion: I am very subconsciously self conscious. I'm pretty sure that's an oxymoron, but it's the only way I can describe how I feel, which is apparently very important to me. I just want everyone's attention to be on me as much as mine is. is that too much to ask?! I start my bowling class in 20 minutes. good luck to me not worrying too much about how I look when I'm bowling so I can actually learn something.
10.24.2007
Gibbous a break!
I like to write a lot, I guess. I mean there are a lot of things that I write. Most of it is handwritten (I tell people I write everything by hand because I'm working on my handwriting... really it's just because I'm too cheap to get a computer). Those things usually get lost or just take so long that I never finish my thoughts and I eventually throw them away in dissatisfaction. I'm never able to write exactly what I'm thinking, either. I usually get too focussed on the aesthetics of what I'm writing that my thoughts get jumbled and robotic. What?! pretty handwriting is important to me. I have a journal (also handwritten) that I try to scribble things down in every so often, but for some reason, I'm unable to break free of the ridiculous/typical/"I'm being forced to write in my journal" format, so most of what I write embarrasses me at the thought of anyone else ever reading it. Earlier this year, I had a pocket-sized journal that I'd write thoughts in as they came to me. Being pocket-sized, I kept it in my pocket and wrote in it frequently enough to become proud of and somewhat attached to it. I lost it, and was so heartbroken about it that I couldn't get myself to pony up the $8 to buy another one. very frustrating. It's brown, leather, has a strap that wraps around it, and is riddled with secrets. if you find it, give it back. So, here I am, trying to solve all of my problems by appeal to the internet. I think everyone eventually comes to that conclusion these days. eHarmony.com. Chances are I won't write in this nearly as much as I intend to, but it's better than nothing.
I had always fancied myself a good writer. I think that's because I hadn't exposed myself to that much good writing. I have two brothers that I'm finding out more and more are amazing at it. Things like blogs have helped me realize this. I have a friend that has a blog that I casually creped upon the other day, and to put it simply, I was blown away. you should check it out: Robot Hearts. Not that I didn't expect it of her. I guess I'm just learning to be a lot less selfish and to focus on the amazing talents of my friends. That's how I'll put it so I can still take some of the credit. I think the only way I'll ever write as well as these people I admire so much is practice. Why not practice for the whole world to see? Delusions of grandeur. I doubt many people besides myself will ever look at this. I still think it's a good idea, or at least am in the process of convincing myself it is.
I had always fancied myself a good writer. I think that's because I hadn't exposed myself to that much good writing. I have two brothers that I'm finding out more and more are amazing at it. Things like blogs have helped me realize this. I have a friend that has a blog that I casually creped upon the other day, and to put it simply, I was blown away. you should check it out: Robot Hearts. Not that I didn't expect it of her. I guess I'm just learning to be a lot less selfish and to focus on the amazing talents of my friends. That's how I'll put it so I can still take some of the credit. I think the only way I'll ever write as well as these people I admire so much is practice. Why not practice for the whole world to see? Delusions of grandeur. I doubt many people besides myself will ever look at this. I still think it's a good idea, or at least am in the process of convincing myself it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)