So what’s up with the latest buzz-word “emerging”? It’s starting to get annoying: First up today, I read a post about Samsung’s kid/teenager-”friendly” phone, which allowed such features as “fake call” and “SOS Call”. And how did they describe the usage of these features? “..users can be directly linked to their family members and friends in emergent situations and even easily escape from dangerous situations”. Ok, sure this is “emergent” as in “emergency”, as in “911″. I’m ok with that.

Exhibit “B” came down the pipes right after I read about the phone: Ray Kurzweil’s interview regarding AI and all the other fund machine-futurism ideas I tend to enjoy. He (of course) decided to use “emerging” in a more philosophical sense: “if we were to consider where consciousness comes from we would have to consider it an emerging property.” Really Ray? Emerging? Just like the number ‘2′ emerges from putting 1 and 1 together? Whoa, that’s mysterious.. I don’t know how ‘2′ just emerged!

And of course there’s always the “emergent”/”emerging” church issues. How inane is it to have dividing lines along the last few letters of a word?

Seriously, if ‘emergent’ is becoming a synonym for ‘immediate’, ‘unknown’, ‘novel’ or ‘indirect causation’, all terms lose their meaning. It’s like describing the very-well-known processes of electrical transistors not a ’switches’ but as ‘dice’. There are better terms out there: supervenience, direct & indirect causation, necessary or essential, contingent or ‘accidental’..

The language of emerging (whether good or bad) puts stress on the object created and less on it’s contingencies. Read: Giving something the property of necessity-of-existence when it is wholly contingent. While I understand this to be an absolute reversal of Modernism’s interest in the necessary and non-contingent (and subsequent disinterest in all things contingent), surely there ought be a balance to this “OMG! Isn’t this SO GREAT?!” romanticism (or so claims this semi-modernist!)

So as for this blog-post ‘emerging’ from my brain, being contingent on my job not interrupting me, my own ability to focus, as well as my own thoughts being formed into this ‘whole’ which is a post, I guess it “emerges” just like an “emergent” (911) situation.. but honestly, what in life doesn’t emerge??

An interesting quote from French President Nicholas Sarkozy (from AFP):

..that many of the hundreds of French soldiers executed for desertion or mutiny during the war “had not dishonoured themselves, were not cowards, but had simply been pushed to the extreme limit.

Critique:

1. Modernism (as foreseen by Nietzsche and Marx) dehumanizes us into pawns to be maneuvered, not humans with boundaries to be built up and valued. Likewise, there was the expectation that human boundaries were much larger than they are presently considered to be. Furthermore, post-imperial thinking was enarmoured by modernism’s technology and love of orderly boundaries.
2. PostModernism now recognized those lowered boundaries/expectations on us, allowing us to be more ‘pansy’, but also to feel and enjoy and create art not war now that those boundaries are more accepted, and pride is less accepted.
3. Personal pride of being the hero and love for country is hardly ever greater than love for self-protection and those we trust (thank you Maslow). If it is, then such pride has likely taken over any genuine love and interest in people (nevermind that Christian citizenship is international).

All I heard and saw last night was about racial equality. The cameramen were trained on any non-white face they could find. The news seemed to think the ability of American voters to be “color blind” was the issue, as if that fickle over-used phrase was actually capable of accurately communicating the requisite perception-change for social sanity, let alone unity in the states..

Now, I’m frustrated by the history of American racial tension too.  Sure, Obama’s election was “historic” in that it’s never happened before. Sure it’s “valuable” in that African-Americans read their own self-worth through the most significant contemporary achievement of their race (be it the 30’s jazz musicians, 40’s war vets or the iconic Jackie Robinson or Michael Jordan). But, do I do that? I mean, I understand the underdog mentality and I’ve studied plenty of American history to understand the basics of “Black Consciousness” (and walked their streets and entered into their homes and lives).. but do I consider my own self-potential to be equal with a combined Brad Pitt, JFK, and Einstein?

What I’m saying is when you see Einstein, you don’t see a man. You see “significant genius”. When you see a picture of JFK, you don’t see “some guy from massachusetts”, you see “youngest president” or “tragedy”.. something more significant than the person and something more significant than and dissociated with yourself.

It ought be the goal of each person to break through the obvious, the visible, the connotations, prejudices and stereotypes to break into a significant subjective, that is expressed and unleashed into the social world.

Most people know this, few acheive it. Many think they acheive it by being the first with the latest (but that’s just taking on the originality of another).. I laughed at the 90’s “independent” brand. Yes, everyone one of you wearing “Independent” is (a) different than each other (b) a person who created that article of clothing without the help of anyone else. You hand-knit it form the ctton you picked yourself. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Sites like “Google Trends” help us know we’re mostly the same as other people.

I guess I’m tired of hearing the empty fixation on “color blindedness” when it’s not about NOT seeing color so much as seeing something good in people. On one hand, I’m frustrated with the empty pride of the black-poor who aren’t making anything of their lives, who don’t afford me any opportunity to see them for any significant contribution to society.. But I also know that’s not the issue, that’s it’s more about the old-guard of arrogant white oppressors who thought that telling generation upon generation that they were worthless and fit for nothing; stealing away african-american hope and dignity while losing their own. I do understand the social pressure and consequences of the psychology of worthlessness. It takes a lot to break through it. Societal change through the growth of personal change is not just a rational journey but an emotional, experiential one. It does need a savior on a mission: a man with hope and ability for others to come along and not just agree with (like so much of black-history) but to look up to and work with.

So I’m glad Obama got a landslide victory over an old white guy. I do hope he’ll be a guide for African Americans who don’t understand their own feelings and history; I do hope everyone will ‘wake up’ into responsible, resourceful self-actualization and social reciprocation. But I know that there’s more to actualization than seeing another do it, or being proud of yourself because of your perceived association with another. I’m ready to see original, life-changing significant people of any and all races moving forward into true humanity and taking on the responsiblity over this world granted us in Genesis 1.

35% of Ami professional smart-phone addicts want
87% don’t know when to stress about work and when to sleep

So says http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3772821

Think of who these ppl are.. they’re likely not the early baby-boomers. Maybe they’re the late ones. But they’re DEFINATELY the Gen-X’ers, and the GenY’ers just keep going mindlessly calling it “the new life.”

GenX’ers & Y’s grew up with a novel thing: gaming consoles. Our parents grew up with something tech-novel too: TV. Millenialls grew up with the internet, and smartphones are honestly a continuation of that novel-tech. And what happens every time novel-tech comes out? Ppl don’t know what ot do with it. There’s no social precedent keeping boundaries from addictions. Ppl go crazy.

I’ve had (still have) smartphone-y devices around me. Do I check them like these crazy wife-replacers? Nope. It’s all about being proficient with them enough to STOP GETTING ALERTS as well as keeping your values in place. Honestly, my mobile life is better served with smartphone-ish devices than without. I’d rather talk with people as I’m looking info up (or scribble out my thoughts for later referral) than to wait for my laptop to boot, or have to walk into the other room where the computer is.

Yes, we do live in a new Information Age. Previously people lived their lives just dandy without Search and Accessing info OTA. There’s nothing wrong with that, but lately people want the information that is available to them, and more information can mean more meaningful (accurate!) conversation. Less speculation when the facts are available. And I’m all about less silliness like that, so long as people don’t trade silliness for silliness.

A few weeks back, I was in the middle of a debate whether “superlative” meant “-est” only or both “-er” and -”est.”

Well, it seems that dictionary.com is no help on this point. It’s entry on ’superlative‘ gives no comment on the “-er” ending.. but while attempting to come up with a term for the ‘middle-ground’, I’ve stumbled upon a few new words of my own making: if SUPER-lative is the highest, then the lower would be the Inferlative? Is that seriously a word? Or what about it’s cousin, ‘Infralative’? I mean, I wanna know; it could be fun to call someone the “inferlative of society” or what have you

In my curiosity, it looks like Latin is the source and solution to my question: there’s other fun words like supRAlative (motion unto above), deinfralative (motion from below), apudessive (at rest beside) and pertingent (at rest on).

So there ya go. I’ll leave you to your own devices for the use of such grammar.

There are 2 kinds of art, given a set of elements to play with:
1) The kind that thinks all adds up to 63.. or
2) The kind that thinks sees 34 or 23 or 13. i’ll take any of ‘em!

Each would see the ‘brown’ canvas with black dots differently. The first kid would likely create something more like the blue canvas, all focusing together; the latter would make something like the green canvas– not all the dots connected on the same pattern or at precisely the same angles. More is added in than is necessary, and some is left out.

The first type of artist is one of a strong-mind; who must make all the connections connect as close as possible. “Close” isn’t good enough. There *IS* *only* *one* *ideal*. This the idealism at it’s best/worst. There’s strengths to this, like knowing what you’re doing; understanding and having reasons. Those are good, but they aren’t *all* there is.

This method will also have trouble with what is given; will prefer to modify what is given in favor of ’rounding off the edges’ so that it fits within the Ideal he has created. Trouble is, self-defined ‘rough edges’ may be some else’s precious child. Sacrificing another for your-own is hardly commendable. Thus the idealists have consistently one thing to learn: love+humility, in the form of valuing others and seeking understanding of them. Often this won’t happen without a fight, since the idealist will idealize (within his own ideas/competencies) what the other persons wants. He will always think he has acheived until someone tells him otherwise.

This idealist thrives on energy, and dismisses the existence of entropy, that he should have to deal with it, bow to it’s demands, or worse, be accountable for it. “Entropy is outside of me, thereby ‘not my problem’” he would say.

The second form of art is a much less strong-minded/ideal approach, where “close enough” has much wider tolerances. It’s less ideal, more pragmatic. However, that does not mean that it is less precise; things can precisely exist and be placed within a tolerance. Often one method of this is to leave out elements that are ’suggested’ but not ‘required’ for the scope of work; there are more however.

This is the pluralist’s approach: chopping off the head of #1 and making all #2 & #3. Creating more level ground. And for pragmatism, that’s just fine: why sell the $60k car to a kid who grew up with a ‘85 cavalier? He won’t know what to do with it, can’t afford it, and will end up wrecking it, all while you’re $55k in debt! Giving away high quality has no place in the market. Rather, consistently selling people what they can handle (but not dream or do for themselves) is progress, and sufficient. This expectation and standard the idealist cannot handle, and will only scoff at.

Each artist is different. But both will tend to view their work as an expression/extention of themselves. So telling the idealist to not be so idealistic is telling them to do ‘crap-work’, and further communicating that ‘crap’ is more acceptable than they are. So what does that leave them feeling like? Crap’s crap. And entirely confused/frustrated. “But I was doing my best!!!” Yes, and the world can’t handle you. Idealists suffer through “The heartbreaking work of staggaring genius.” The world can’t handle idealists, and idealists can’t handle the world.

As for the hope of the idealist changing into the pragmatist, it can rarely happen. This is the cry of the 90’s for “out-of-the-box” thinkers. This is equal to the “work” that must be done in marriage, which no dating-for-one-month couple who has yet to run out of date ideas still has to learn and of which cannot conceive. Such work takes either supreme self-awareness or supreme others-focused-ness, consistent changing of purpose, playing with possibilities instead of fixating on the One, being thankful for open rebuke and not being afraid to try.

This is not about ‘aiming & shooting lower’ like the idealist will think it is. It’s another goal altogether, one filled with enabling other people’s dreams over your own, and calling their ugly baby pretty, because they never thought they could give birth.

Update: this little art-theory has everything to do with personal clothing style choices as well:

While recently looking at a “wide leg” ad, I was reminded me of a rather ‘artsy’ friend of mine. While analyzing this ad, I was further reminded what defines the “artsy” look. It’s having “outfits” that are offbeat, but also which only display 2% of “you” and having 90 of such outfits. This way you never wear the same style from day-to-day like ‘most’ ppl, and you never wear what is FULLY yourself, but are happy to take this one small 2% bit of you and tease it out into something bigger than yourself. Of course this is the ‘I’ personality type who can pull this off, since that’s how they *act*, not just dress.

I’m not that type. I’m the more orderly-idealist who will tend to be more “monochromatic” in style (having found the One Style that IS Me), albeit just off-beat enough, a la beatniks & film noir

Prayer: I don’t take seriously my role as a priest

Icebreakers: So what you’re telling me is that we all don’t have enough social skills, and we have to listen to someone who does

Bloggers: Bloggers must be deeply, consistently moved & taken to keep it up & be good & popular. I’m not that dysfunctional. No, I’m dysfunctional on other terms.

Pharisees: Pharisees kept legal over social. Which is why Jesu told them to love.

Which is the “proper” syntax:

1. Now, obviously, Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.
2. Now, obviously Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.
3. Obviously Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.

Likely #3. but why do we all tend towards #1? Likely because we early-21st-century-ers are more about communicating how *I* speak (subjective, personal idiosyncrasies) than aligning with the Objective Grammar. Post-Modernism is all about the Death of the Object and Rise of the Subject.

“*I* would have said the sentence with pauses, so THAT is why *I* put commas in.”

Again, which is more important? Communicating clearly (per the norm of Modernistic Rules) or communicating SELF? Do we all display our psychological dependencies of personal acceptance through simple grammar?

How ought we position the Bible & the Gospel to our children? (1) As a simplified version of it? (2) as a hidden message which they can only understand a part of? (3) as an amazing message which they can understand and keep understanding and never know it all?

Seems the church, while enamored by idealism in one lens, has as it’s other lens “accessibility.” We all want our children “saved” NOW before they are 5 so that they’ll never have to get mixed up in the world’s pain. That sounds more like an (ab)use of religion for personal parenting pleasure instead of seeking God’s desire/plan for your child!

Jesus didn’t seem too concerned about “accessibility.” or dumbing down our faith-system. Rather, he spoke of it in confusing stories and hard-to-accept statements. He, like Kierkegaard seemed more concerned with making difficulties than bringing clarity to a situation. But all that is perhaps “spin.”
What of this idea that the Gospel be communicated not a “hidden” or “you’ll understand it when you’re older” message? This sounds cultish, and draws harsh lines around who’s “in” or not. The former reason is irrelevant, the latter wholly relevant: God’s message is clearly able to be trusted by those who may not understand all of the details. Yes, children will understand the gospel better when they are older, but they are not incapable of trusting it even without knowledge of the details.

But the Gospel is also not simply “magic.” DNA-evidence (and computers) are “magic” to most people. Cookies baking can be “magic” to children. Going to the bank can be “magic” (since they ALWAYS and ONLY give you money!) These kinds of “magical” understandings aren’t wrong, just lacking the depth of understanding. But if you come to an adult who goes to the bank always expecting money, you know something isn’t right. And anyone not a child who, upon pulling out those cookies jumps for joy and amazement that it’s not just an icky lump of gooey batter..

Children can get by without understanding the details. Certainly this is part of what Jesus refers to with “childlike faith” in Mt 18. But Paul wasn’t very content to have to deal with a bunch of children in 1 Cor 13.11! Our faith can be “childlike” in its pure and simple trust, but our understanding (reason/intellect/rationality) of our faith ought always be “on par” with our understanding of any other aspect of this planet (development). So then, our communication of the Gospel to children ought not to the point of “I wish I were older/smarter,” for that is Eph 6 exasperation, but “I can’t wait to know more about God!” Satisfied with (even ignorant of) their own development, interested in their relationship with God.

I grew up more with a “this is what Jacob did”/”be like Paul” focused Christianity instead of a “this is what Joseph learned about God, how hard it was and how cool things can turn out!” Imagine that mixed with “This is what Korah learned about God.” There’s a lot to God. He takes our lives to display himself to us and all others.

Not that children follow that abstract summary idea of “our lives”.. but also, not that we want them to go around saying “Today I’m going to display God’s wrath!” since it is God who defines our lives and what they can display and unto whom will they be seen.

The whole of humanity, whether believers in God or not display him. His qualities are in all in various levels. All men reflect his image(Gen 2), but not all participate in his nature (2 Peter 1:4). What is this distinction? Romans 1 & 2 display the option for unbelievers to uphold the law AND to twist their lives and epistemology into their own self-gratifying realm. Which would we prefer for our children? Surely the former!

So when developing children, there’s a few levels:

Identity + Activity (be + do)

1. Identity as absolutely beloved
2. Self as displaying God (involuntarily and voluntarily)
   1. but my selfish desires aren’t God’s desires..
   2. some desires are built in, and are part of God’s creation & personal knowing of me, and plan for my life.
3. Activity as displaying God (involuntarily & voluntarily)
4. Activity as God’s desire over self-desire(?)
   1. not as “pleasing God”, for what can a mand do to please God that Jesus has not already done?
   2. self-importance diminished (?)
5. Life as difficult (Jesus’ statements on reality & how to live it)
   1. God as overcoming, transcendent over creation & pain
   2. Also immanent through the Spirit and Incarnation.

Pick the term:
1) Accurate
2) Infallible
3) Precise
4) Sufficient
5) Effective

Which one (a) do you like? (b) do you feel best represents a man’s ability to comprehend perfect Deity? (c) is most communicative within the general populus?

Now, I know these are 3 separate questions, and likely to have 3 separate list-rankings.. but I’m prone to think of them in the same way, with #2 most-popular in dogmatic minds and #1 more happily in my mind. Do they say/mean the same thing? Sure they do. So why the dogmatic need (fear.. what? no love in fear?) to “defend” terminology? This is, obviously, a matter of “official” terms vs. common-man’s thinking, but seriously, there is such a thing as a dead language.. and dead orthodoxy.. and I’m usually pro-life, and anti-death.

And since we’re on about fear, here’s mine: “I’ve heard you (Mr. Dogmatist) use the same terms as so many other people who I’ve heard use blatant fallacy and ill-logic.. so, I’m scared that you keep using the same terms.. Cuz anyone can use the terms/language, but that doesn’t mean they ‘get it’.. and I most of all want to know that you understand what life, love, truth & Jesus are all about.. and I just can’t do that unless you get creative with your vocab.”

Of course, the reply then comes: “But I don’t know you’re withing orthodoxy unless you use the proper terms.”

Is this all we have? Such an impasse of communication?