A national study of 14 US cities reveals who’s fit & who’s fat. In honor of such a news-release, I figure’d I’d align each city’s cultural nick-name or feature they are known for to see if “city-pride” is tied to it..

Nope.. doesn’t seem to be any direct correlation.

Some thoughts which fundamental/conservative christians will never approach.

Their usual approach is to “outsource” logical thinking to those in authority over them & run with the conclusions from such people. The consistent trouble with this is mis-used authority, often within churches it takes the form of speaking from outside the realm of one’s knowledge. The corollary to one of the arguments leads to a conclusion of “He’s ‘God’s man’, and God knows everything, so he has access to everything, and his conclusions are best.”

For such fallacious thinking I have no tolerance. It’s amazing people even allow themselves to call such statements ‘reasons’.

By only listening to one source for all epistemology, metaphysics, physics, biology and ethics, one can ONLY wind up with a small, linear path of knowledge and behavior. OF COURSE it’s The Way Things Should Be – they won’t validate any other statements than The One they hear/have heard/agree with.

By outsourcing all logical functions leading to conclusions about reality, a few kinds of people (with their own kind of psycho-pathology!) can created (simply by nature of what people have within themselves.. personality, etc):

1) The paranoid: unable to listen to anything to calm down the thoughts the have from the inside, or hear from the outside.. Having had no familiarity with reason or logic (since outsourced & denied by the church) any tid-bit of semi-reason is more than powerful to put them to sway. To which further abuse from those in category #4 tell them to “Get a grip,” “just believe,” and “Trust Jesus.”.. trust him for what, besides “that he has all things worked out” and “this is for The Good” they cannot say. Who knew they were Platonic?

2) The nice rebel: as stated, the agnostics and mystics. Much like #1, but “on the outside” often who came from the “inside.”

3)  The mean rebel: one who recognizes the abuse of monocular dogmatics/outsourced reason. Becomes sharp with reason to use against #1 or 4. Becomes the authority of #2.

4) The Dogmatic Follower: follows in line with what is said, no matter what, further creating these pathologies.. unable to reason why they are created, unable to admit they create them, unable to fix, only able to label and lambaste. Peaceable, rational, relational interaction is impossible. Statements such as “I don’t understand why you can’t just..(fall in line) are then made to #1 through 3.”

Development occurs in each category generationally. What becomes appalling is when two forms of the same reality develop among each of these group/people types and one is labelled ‘legit’ and the other is demonized.

Simple pride stops people from listening to other sources and admitting there’s more than Their Way Things Should Be.

And on the opposite side, sadly, pride is also what stops the materialist or the mystic or agnostic from finding any conclusion at all. We might even say this psycho-pathology (fear of being wrong) is created by dogmatics.

And isn’t all this mess simply rectified by authorities listening? Reason being restored?  Forbid listening to Ecclesiastes (hmm.. the book of the ecclesia.. church?)

Ecclesiastes 4:13 Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. 

Rule #1: Authority != (does not equal) knowledge.

Where this rule is denied, you will find chaos and mindless followers, even those who think they are intellectuals, rebels, independent. All are the same, and all need pride removed, often starting with the Authorities, who shall be judged first and hardest.

Note: Jesus said to teach what he taught; Paul said he taught nothing but Christ. I dare say the ‘church’ receives the most criticism/condemnation form inside and out when it tries to teach something other than the true Gospel: Jesus.

 http://xkcd.com/416/

..OR you could just get a data plan for your cell & stop the madness before children get abducted. (And yes, I do accomplish this with Ubuntu too!)

Sometimes using <? $thispost=get_post($id); echo $thispost->post_content ?> isn’t enough.

Sometimes, you need a full menu structure to be highlighted or built according to that post.

Sometimes you need a menu parent pull in the ‘first child’ content.

Sometimes, you need to fake wordpress out:

<? //Usage: given, any time this template is called and happens to be on page_id '6' make page '6' act  like page '8'.
$wp_query=fakePage($wp_query->post->ID,"6","8",$wp_query);

function fakePage($currid,$thisid,$fakeid,$wp_query){
if(strcmp($currid,$thisid)==0){
$thispost=get_post($fakeid);

//the fake-out
$wp_query->post->ID=$fakeid;
$wp_query->post->post_content=$thispost->post_content;

$wp_query->queried_object->ID=$fakeid;
$wp_query->queried_object_id=$fakeid;
$wp_query->queried_object->post_content=$thispost->post_content;

$wp_query->posts[0]->ID=$fakeid;
$wp_query->posts[0]->post_content=$thispost->post_content;
}
return $wp_query;
} ?>

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.

<?php

$location= ‘http://’.$_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'].’/mywebapp’;
echo $location;

?>

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.