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).

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?

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.

Just cuz __x__ is used as ammo against ___A___ does not mean __x__ is necessarily against ___A___.

This is what all “radicalists” do not understand, and what (good) PoMo’s do understand.

How this is true:

1. Pure logic. Use a Venn diagram if you need.
2. Subversion/Re-framing:
   1. Addition: throwing in more ‘variables’ (statements) that undermine
   2. Subtraction: removing illegit variables (statements)

What happens when this isn’t understood? Fear-mongering and a smaller, protectionist world.

So my dad recently proclaimed his policy on television-watching: educate me, or make me laugh.

Now, my dad is a baby-boomer, who likes learning a thing or two every now and then. History channel stuff. He grew up pre-80’s when hippie/folk was the thing, and before the 80’s candy-simulacra*.

I came along somewhere, semi-insulated and listening to the voices around me which were mostly screaming “Here we are now, entertain us..” (HOW many times did I use that in conversation?!) Oddly enough, that 90’s cry was in parallel with the 60’s hippie dream, as a good man once said, “The 60’s dream turned into the 90’s nightmare.” Philosophically and sociologically, that makes sense.

Oddly enough, Nirvana was reacting against the 80’s simulacrum, which suggested all they do was be entertained. Entertainment is trivial, banal, fiat. Think of all the 80’s sit-com’s. Candy. They don’t exist anymore, ever wonder why? They’ve been replaced by super-real 24 and SVU.  The difference? The latter hold 2 elements: excitement (which is trivial) and intellect. They keep you thinking. Why is Trivial Pursuit the official 80’s game? And why is Cranium the theme of the early 2000’s? Banality vs. engagement. “Just be happy” doesn’t fly anymore.

The ball has bounced**, and we’re all on the other side. My generation has gotten over the entertainment pseudo-ideal and sold-out for plot-lines (again, one more thing 80’s entertainment lacked!). We’re more likely to critique the plot and overlook the sex-scenes.. critique the camerawork and artistic uses.. whether it felt ‘forced’ or the audience ‘manipulated’. Aesthetics and “reality” over simple like/dislike and escapism.
* simulacra: I refer to the 80’s end-goal of life: to live on a beach/resort/condo and do nothing, after having taken your kids to disneyworld where they were further removed from reality. Insulation.

** The ball being modernism. late modernism=pre-bounce, post-modernism being post-bounce.

As nations modernized, wars broke out. Concerns over borders, etc.

Late modernism is filled with diplomacy, and ‘liaving to live with each over’, the formation of the EU.

As churches modernized, church splits, wars over borders of denominations broke out.

Late modern churches have come to terms with the world and other churches and understand co-operation and ‘living with’ instead of holing up in their own corner and/or  violently demanding.

Kevin Kelly proves how amazing he is today. The internet has opened doors wide open, and our economy is now dependent on it, but the transition isn’t over yet. (Obama’s running, but not in office yet either!)

These eight qualities require a new skill set. Success in the free-copy world is not derived from the skills of distribution since the Great Copy Machine in the Sky takes care of that. Nor are legal skills surrounding Intellectual Property and Copyright very useful anymore. Nor are the skills of hoarding and scarcity. Rather, these new eight generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset, how generosity is a business model, how vital it has become to cultivate and nurture qualities that can’t be replicated with a click of the mouse.

So, here’s my commentary on some of ‘the 8′:

Authenticity: it amazes me that the recording industry is being beyond paranoid about this. Kevin makes the wonderful point that visual artists have had to deal with fakes for HOW many years? Take a clue instead of suing everyone and holding on to a fading world. Change or die. (Or use the courts?)

Accessability: requires open standards and free software behind it! I want my media on all my devices, but often the device manufacturer didn’t intend/supply the ability to access all i want (all the device can!) The Nokia n800 is a great example. This thing can be your calendar, ssh client, webserver. It’s a portable web-dev environment. Did they indend it to be such? Nope. Can it? Yup. So for listening to music on my phone, until the speed gets up on the networks, and software is written to access it, I’m gonna fill my microSD card. But that’s all pragmatics anyways.

Embodiment: Experience. More on that later.

Patronage: dependent on cultural sense of value of ART/$. If the dollar is worth less, they’ll get more. If worth more, they’ll get less,

Findability: I get scared this means “more annoying advertisements”! It just may.

He continues with how being found is near impossible for “the little man.” Hmm.. didn’t I mention this a few days ago about “the little man” taking on these overgrown concierge-systems? Great ideas aren’t great until they’re known. Then comes the question, “How do I get known?” (1) Pay (2) Hard work (3) Always requires time for that ‘long tail’ to be connected. I saw a model of how this works as a kid in the back seat watching rain on the window. When I saw that not all of the water was falling, but some small drops were sticking, I wondered when they stopped sticking in place and started running down the window. Turns out it’s surface tension.. aka “The Cheerio Effect.” Only when more water was applied (through random rain or as it touched another drop) did gravity overcome and pull the larger drop down. But in the process, the drop “wanted” to touch other drops more than it “wanted” to go unimpeded down the water-free glass. As I’ve anthropomophised this example, so it is with people. Given the option, we’ll generally go talk with people we know about something we enjoy over sitting in a room alone and enjoying it.

And oddly enough, ‘trust’ is what makes Google more popular than the near defunct dozens of other search engines (who uses lycos, dogpile, altavista anymore anyways?? But I remember when each was considered “the best”).

He closes with Advertising, something I was fearful to consider as well: Google has become the greatest traffic-cop/concierge. “Find it on Google” doesn’t mean google owns it. Just that Google knows where it is. Google doesn’t advertise itself. It advertises those who have it.
But advertising is a function of “Person who owns ad-able space” & “Owner’s interest in open space vs. $”. I’d like to rewrite that last one as “Interest in ART vs. $.” Aesthetics is the newest highest virtue. We’ve been sliding that way for the past century or two, but What troubles me is, “What’s next?” I don’t ask that question blindly like most.. Aesthetics came to us as being the last in a line of Metaphysics (who could doubt reality?), Epistemology (Who can doubt knowledge?) & now Aesthetics (who can doubt what is beautiful?). Aesthetics isn’t empirical. It isn’t rational. It’s subjective experience. Who can doubt that? Sure you can, but I can’t. (Yeah, it’s obnoxious seeing all these kids in the corner pouting, “My way!”)

There’s only so many Ethical virtues. When virtue became a virtue, it no longer meant anything. “Box means box” is no more clarifying than “HGu” is “HGu.” Virtue was a hold-over from pre-modernism, and Modernity replaced it with pragmatism. Pragmatism values $ over art/open space (Need we one MORE rendition of Joni Mitchell, thank you Counting Crows, Lillith Fair, etc!) and the artists scream back. But even the height of hippie-dom my generation pushes against. “free, open, whatever man” doesn’t work. We know this, instead we use knowledge that modernism has created an apply it in our own ways.

Previously, knowledge had a capital K. It only added up ONE way (Who knew the evangelicals ended up embracing modernism after all!) And in a semi-uninformed society, trust of authority is essential. But if we all know how the government/MS Windows/life works (and fails) we can make a new one. And that’s what my generation is doing: “playing with the pieces” as my philosophy prof said. But when he said it, it sounded dull and dreary. Turns out, it’s ‘exciting’ until it fails. But so is ANY human project.

Think of it, Modernism was exciting when it came out too. Think of all the Modern Dreams- the Jetsons or even Bruce Wayne’s father’s world. His father had a Modern dream if there ever was one. Bruce now lives in the bitterness of it being broken, while trying to restore order. He may be dreaming like his father, but the setting doesn’t portray him as nearly as successful. Why? Any coder will tell you: debugging the system takes at least 3times longer than building it! But it’s exciting when it starts. So is the initiation of child-birth. Child-rearing isn’t nearly as fun and care-free.

One-off heroism and the idealism of dreams vs. ‘reality’ of cleaning up, fixing up, confession of wrongs, persistence, patience. Modernism tried to do away with the latter. But like Terminator & The Matrix, people are the problem to that. People screw up. You can’t remove confession of wrongs and still hope for true life. Modernism took violence against reality. PostModernism is somewhere between using the natural-flowing stream: let it run free, but use it too. Augmented Reality. That’s what pharmaceutical co’s promote. That’s what technology is dabbling with (don’t ride the train with all the scary people, drive your OWN car instead! And if you DO ride the train, be sure to insulate yourself with your iPod).

Ok. I’m spent. I’m sure there’s more to write on this, like how social justice/activism is or isn’t involved,  whether putting a bumper sticker is doing anything, and the hippie ‘one world’ dream. Such a socio-economic transition. Let’s just hope the geeks take over congress

I was thinkin’ about this randomly this morning (my brain auto-feeds itself early morning content!!) It’s the whole platonic beatific vision (intellectualism) turned monasticism turned modernism’s protectionist/priority thing.

“It’s the greatest command, so we must do it!” .. think ppl unwaveringly. Nevermind Romans 4, nevermind 1 john 4: The Father’s love in Jesus is what starts this whole thing, and what sustains this whole thing.

People, being ethically challenged by Jesus’ own words to let go of this their value system of “I’m fulfilling the greatest command by being monastic” don’t know what to make of the other options. Less “spiritual”? No, spiritual is not antithetical to physical. Modern constructions of Conservative and Liberal aren’t the end-all-be-all (praise God!).

In the end, I will not discount that we are all broken and in need of love. Rather I prioritize that need being fulfilled higher than Jesus’ command for us to love the Father. Besides, didn’t Groundhog Day, The Matrix, and Bruce Almighty teach us anything about commanded love?

Overall, I’ve had a sordid history with ‘reality’. I used to fuss over semantics with those who’d say, “why can’t we just ‘be real’ with each other?”

There’s a number of problems with this, especially socially: there’s a matter of honesty and boundaries which needs navigated correctly instead of polarized even more than it is. And my personal issue: “Being real” usually referred to expressing the pent-up sinful desires/anger/addictions within us. So “real” means “sinful.” And we’re christians, so why ought we be “real” then?

The matter truly at hand is ideological: will we agree to a singular position of conservation across multiple disciplines (economics, politics, education, ethics, entertainment) or a singular liberal position across those same disciplines. This sounds ridiculous when you take it in Lego terms: I have 10 pieces, 2 for each discipline, one representing liberality, one representing conservation. Now, you’re telling me that the 5 conservative pieces ONLY fit together and the 5 liberal peices ONLY fit together, and ne’er the twain shall meet?

Now, it’s one thing to say that “these 5 fit together, and the best in such and such a fashion, but there’s some issues to contend with. If you believe that, then:

1. shouldn’t it produce actual improvement?
2. shouldn’t it be rationally coherent and explainable as to why they ought fit together as such?

But instead when that position leads to triviality and no reasons are given, it inherently undermines itself.

I didn’t recognize half of this until after I took a Contemporary Philosophy class and read John Eldredge. These two presented me with alternative legitimate positions and issues to deal with.

Reality, as is desired and concerned with by most teenagers & college kids is the daily concerns and struggles and joys of others who have lived and do live differently. It’s not enough to hear 3rd-hand. Hand-me-down ethics and reasons don’t always cut it. but to befriend the heartache and joys of a homosexual is 90 times more effective at “learning life” than dismissing all aspects of their life as “wrong.”

This isn’t about just ethics. This applies to knowing if media (news, music, movies) are healthy and worthwhile. I’m reading a Reuter’s article today that says the Microsoft buyout offer to Yahoo is all about search. Then I read effectively an op-ed by an industry analyst, and all of a sudden it’s not about search anymore. Who will I trust?

So maybe it’s not about tech anymore. Maybe it’s about how to raise your kids. Do you trust the “industry insiders” of parenting? Who is that anyways? The bestseller? your mom? How to decide?

It’s tough for parents, wanting to be protective, and their teenage kids react against their position in polarized fashion. The parents react just the same “Ahh! My kid is talking about __liberal position__!!” Sure they are. Why? cuz it’s something. Something that you, as a parent never allowed on the map, and now they realize it’s on the map out there somewhere. Just because parents forget/ignore/deny that something it out there doesn’t mean that their child can/will.