what does it mean that i have ‘irrational’ fears?
as a child, of lightning, or of an arson outside my house..
of the dark or of the basement..
ghosts in the curtains.

I’m not a fan of fiction either.
perhaps cause i live in my own.

last night i considered, however accidentally,
that i was raised in super-strong,
doubley removed idealism.
twice removed from reality:
once by religion, once again by my mothers’ protectionism.

fanciful was my youth, removed from pragmatism,
endless possibility hampered by gravity and the likes of which i knew not.
drawing, then coding became my gateway.
there i learned the transferal of idea into semi-reality.
but that’s all i do.. seek after the ideal fantasy
where my mind is free
to do as it dreams
no need for logic or math
scientific rules tossed aside.

all i do is fall in love with ideas.
my own, my words.
i make them great
and try to regain whatever greatness
i must have felt
as a child.

the freedom of my days,
the wide open back yard
or the enormous amount of legos.

frustration came late,
and cluelessness as to how to handle it.
i got what i wanted in lego-land
life’s blocks aren’t so defined.
i’m lucky i learned some psychology
and now i’m tryin’ my hand at sociology
all to understand.. for my brain to hold reality
as just another idealism.
if i know everything,
then i can expect everything
and fear nothing.

so this is impossible.
but i think it’s what is driving me.
to know. to learn.
i don’t stop.
it’s a habit..
an addiction.
i’d stop if i could..
but when i do, it bursts forth
and i love it. i eat it up.

i suppose all things are to be tempered.
i suppose to be whole i’m to take things in pace
get out and do, instead of half-doing twice as much.. or as often.

s’pose i feel like a monkey..
swinging from limb and branch
orbiting one idea to another
spinning and flipping out over which way is up
is the earth still and i’m spinning
or vice versa?
subjectivity, objectivity.. oh in idealism, it’s all the same!
won’t the trouble go away?
pain and heartache relax and melt

one for all and all for the one
yet clueless we remain.
still we claim his name
a label afixed, put there ourselves
upside down it reads
from who’s looking down from above.
oh, come sort us out,
the goats as sheep, the lions as cats.
solve these issues
so i don’t have to.

I’ve been accused by a friend of ‘doing the same thing as the modernists’; that is, building a structure for all the pieces in life. And at face value, that’s right, I am doing the same thing. But there’s more than face value.

Take this dilemma: A friend comes up and tells how she learned a new great way to stretch (in yoga class). But you think yoga is from the devil.

Typical question: is it moral? (read; should I do it/agree with it?)
Typical answer: Fear. (read: yes it’s moral, no I shouldn’t)

Notice the pieces in play vs. the structure (context).
Pieces:
1) body
2) stretching
3) yoga
3.1) spiritual influence: yoga
3.2) bodily influence: stretching
4) spiritual influence: devil’s action in the world

Modernistic-Fundamental-Christian Structure:
1) We both have bodies that need stretching (amoral statement likely to be accepted by both parties)
2) Yoga provides negative spiritual influence ‘hidden’ in bodily influence (fundy-christian only idea)
3) Yoga’s spiritual influence is INSEPARABLE from it’s physical influence (fundy-christian only idea)
4) Therefore, throw the baby out with the bathwater. (conclusion)

PoMo (independent of religion) Structure:
1) We both have bodies that need stretching (amoral statement likely to be accepted by both parties)
2) Yoga provides spiritual influence ‘hidden’ in bodily influence (potentially troublesome idea, depending on what kind of influence)
3) Yoga’s spiritual influence IS SEPARABLE from it’s physical influence (PoMo only idea)
4) Therefore, any negative spiritual influence can be separated from any physical activity.
4.1) Corollary: Yoga may or may not be ‘bad’, but elements can still be ‘good’.

This one’s easy: it’s the ‘inseparable’ element which is the killer. It’s an assumption. And whether you (a) think about for just a second or (b) don’t, depends whether your conclusion is valid. Because if #3 isn’t valid, then #4 (conclusion) is wrong, and we’re left looking like an idiot. This is the resolution I’m referring to. (previously labelled ‘blanket statement’ or ‘generalization’ by the public). It’s not just a question for debate, it’s about a perception of the world which leaves us looking like idiots or sane men. Maybe I’m the crazy one, what ever happened to a little bit of ‘protestant work ethic’ applied to intellectual work? This isn’t even close to a 5lb weight to lift, and will rapidly get Hebrews 5 “milk vs. meat” label applied!

Let me display another spin to this:
Yoga has an ideology, like Catholicism does. Icons mean something in Catholicism. Is this meaning universal, automatic, created in nature (general revelation) or is it man-made, like-unto a work of art or piece of literature? Fact is, the stone is God-made, the carving may be God-ordained, but the purpose of “getting one’s mind on the reality of said sculpted saint” is hardly in the Bible. So it’s likely man’s idea. It’s a good idea. It’s admirable. I’d expect it from someone over 1-2k years of history of any ideology. So we have a piece of rock which has one purpose attached to it by man, but that rock could have been alternatively a paper weight. Or in a grinding mill.

Likewise the body in motion is a creation-level entity, for various application & association. Any given motion (hailing a taxi vs waving hello) is independent of context, until it is contextualized (man-made associations attached — Semiotics anyone?)
Looks like we’re dumped into “to the pure, all things are pure” debate.

My point is simple: for any element, there are plenty of facets and connectable joints (legos, knex, etc). That’s creation-level elements & pieces. Various ideologies attach each peice in certain ways. Some are more flexible (leaving joints/facets open for further attachment, like hinduism) or some are more rigid and demanding (where joints/sides are closed off from touching anything). Modernism constructed a reality in a certain structure, presuming it was the ONLY way it could be built. Fundamental Christianity came along and reacted, creating a counter-structure, with the SAME rigidity. So I simply ask, is Fundamental Christianity ‘true’ christianity or merely a bi-product of modernism? What if there were ‘open’ joints and blocks which could allow for some rearranging? If the WHOLE structure were freely rearrangable, then Christianity would become nothing, and I’m not fond of ’standing up for nothin’. So can we please have a mediate position?

Would you please understand me and my thinker-types? I promise I’m not anti-trinity, anti-virgin birth, anti-atonement. I just like unified, cross-connected, higher-resolution thinking & speaking due to these open joints that are freely connectable to previously missed/unspoken connections (hence my desire for a new vocabulary). There’s a big difference between me and the old-school Modernists and new-school PoMo’s– both think the whole thing’s a sham (fully reconnectable). And I’m certainly different than late-modern dumbed-down all-about-me sell-outs.

“..without adequate public debate” is an interesting phrase. What’s that all about? Likely, that in a democratic environment, this is important that the people *feel they have the power*. Ahh the sensibilities of the masses. While I find crowd behavior easy to mock, in this case it’s important. It’s the choice between public frenzy & outrage vs. a peaceable relationship between ruler/ruled.

And I have trouble with it, because is it really about the public feeling ok with things? feeling they have power? When is emotionality bankrupt?

Let’s spin this one in a different context: parenting. There’s 2 ways to tell a child ‘no’. 1) tell him no (period). 2) talk through it. The trouble comes when #2 is all a sham, when no amount of talking would ever change the authority’s position. Now, besides that being the Straw-man fallacy. It’s really just #1, only worse: you’re mocking the child’s reason (hint: demeaning them!)

Notice how false-discussion only works when, in both cases, whoever is under the authority is moved emotionally. This is the case for smaller children of course, but what of rapidly-becoming rational(let’s hope) late-youth/collegians? Sure, youth are more emo than adults, but let’s take a decently grounded & rational college kid. All of a sudden any intellect he/she may have is sent back to grammar school: No, you’re really just dumb. Hardly good parenting.

Aside: It’s not really democracy when ppl don’t have the power. How crazy is it that I have to choose in unsatisfactorily large probabilities in elections. I don’t get to vote over issues. No one asks me, and no one tells me what issues go on in government. Rather, instead, I get to choose someone who likely is uninformed about the 45 issues I value deeply, and instead only plays to a generic set of 10-20 ‘hot topics’ which I’m usually ambivalent about.

And of course parenting is hardly democracy( the power isn’t in the children), but consider power vs. love vs. knowledge vs. respect. It’s a multi-faceted arena. To ignore half of those and make it about one or two topics only is degrading reality, and living in a lowered-resolution (photography/printing metaphor) idealism. It may work some of the time, but the edges rapidly become ‘gray’ (read: filled with injustice). To take a picture that shows all the colors and fine grains and blur it into a 2-tone, 4 block image? Injustice to the reality which God created, and injustice to your God-created mind which is capable of handling more than you let it.

only goes as far as your voice carries.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/06/mlk.role.church/index.html

Like it or not the masses are won over by their aesthetic life. Until whatever is popular is shown to be ‘ugly’, they won’t be changing. I wish it wasn’t so.

As a kid, i didn’t like that ice cream would melt when put on top of warm pie. I wanted the best of both worlds. Since then I’ve become more cynical about this world and have come to revel in melted ice cream over pie simply because there’s less and less good in the world and pie, even with melted ice cream, is as good as it gets.

The child who is loved by his parents as he/she wants/needs to be vs. the child who is never loved as he/she is needs to be. What’s the diff?

One level of me wants to say “nothing, since both children (if fully able to know their hearts desire) will still feel a lack and be in need of feeling unconditional love from God.  But I won’t accept that any parent can thereby not show unconditional love to any child and get away with it (excuse: go to God to get that). That’s outsourcing love.

Instead, the child who knows what unconditional love is is better prepared to recognize it and give it. More “fluent” in love. Thereby, a child’s value of love is both equated and inverse to a parent’s dispensation of it to them. Equated: understands it in proportion to it being given. Inverse: In desperate need of it depending on how much it has been given. Since another finite person can never fill the infinite need in the soul, the need is always and forever there.

Chicago is warmer than Georgia. This isn’t right.

According to a (feminine) friend today, “Mother Nature just had to be a woman today.”

So I recently became aware that Conan, Leno, etc are involved in what is known as “Observational Comedy.” And this is a nice thing, because it picks up on the semi-obvious and usually humorous elements of contemporary life, news, etc.

I’d like to propose a more profound variety for the masses: Observational Philosophy. Imagine late-night television being hosted by the late Derrida, Quine or Russell. Likely no one would watch simply because they would be frustrating to the work-a-day man. But suppose there’s a middle ground, one which the masses would, like Leno, all stand in agreement and say, “Yes! That’s it!”

This would be not simply the gift of ‘knowledge’, rather the gift of thinking! Analysis, coherent thought-flow. We’re lucky to get such from any source. News? That is anything but coherent! Irresponsible out of context one-offs usually. Politics? Pandering to the masses in double-speak. Religion? Either touchy-feely nothingness or bullied repetition (What of grace and truth?).

Seeing this lack of coherent thought makes me long for a “Sesame Street of Analytic thought for adults” or perhaps a “Mr. Rodgers for grown-ups.” I doubt I’ll ever be one, and I’m not sure I’d want to be, but oh to see the potential for a positive force in American culture and media beyond “Cramer’s Mad Money.”

So here’s my suggestion: Observational Philosophy #1: Hierarchical Authorities

redemption as buying vs. freeing. freedom requires buying. Redemption of israel from romans could never be bought. redemption from death unto life in God is entirely possible.

As I was finishing up uni & going crazy over my unknown future, a ‘dorm-dad’ told me that psychology & personal development & “all the studies say” I won’t know who I am or what I’m doing until almost 30 years of age. So instead of being fearful about it, I was recommended to take it easy, do what sounds worthwhile and see where I land. It sounds a bit haphazard, but honestly: it worked!

Or perhaps I’m seeing this backwards: maybe own brains will “settle down” no matter what we give it, the difference being the one who has invested in himself (travelling internationally, going to grad school, living in multiple cities & building extensive social networks: read: ’seen a lot of different options on how to do life’) such a person will have a wider, more flexible base on which to settle than the one who stays put in one town, one church, one set of friends, watching TV & bar-hopping, never grad schooling.

And while pop-wisdom says youth just need to “get it out of their system” (all this traveling, idealism & ‘rebellion’) that’s only true if you don’t become addicted (or otherwise maladjusted to life). It’s not about “getting it out” so much as “taking it in.” All these experiences I’ve had in & after uni give me the options I need to decide upon who I am and how I’d like to live my life.

And after traveling for a month solid, I’ve come to find out: I don’t think I can handle it anymore! I used to LOVE going-going-going! Flying here, there & in between (heck, this was just a few months ago!!) But after taking 2 days to recover, travel keeps me from myself. And I like myself, and want to be me! I love playing guitar, being productive, having a clean house (which roomies don’t keep up when I’m not there!!). I like my life where it is now, and I don’t wanna have to leave it all the time.

Now, this doesn’t change that I could live out my routine in nearly any city, so I’m still flex, not tied down to any location, so much as my standard and schedule & values acted out wherever I am.

Communicating this to my friends in my old city caused me confusion. I had not yet made any final judgments on my new life, until they asked. “Oh, I guess I like it.. yeah, love it? Sure, that works too..” And I started telling people that I really do like it down here. Then I came back, and looked around at my house & friends.. “I love this?” Yes, I do– I love the good of it, but there’s the bad & messy, and I’m ok with that part too, even if that part is forgotten while away.

So I’m an old man now because I’ve found my life I like, found those element which I NEED to have in it, and I’ve got to protect ‘em & keep ‘em in. This is the OTHER kind of ’settling’– not a lowering of expectations or dreams, but having found the realistic elements in the dreams, and making those actualized. And actualized enough to feel alive.

And for the curious, what caused this blog? Playing “Say it to me now” (opening song of Once) on guitar, and sounding good at it!!  (Am I going to have to start taking my guitar with me everywhere?)