I have a feeling the Romans might feel right at home (frighteningly so) much like the barbarians in those credit card commercials. :)
The first priority of any organization or institution is indeed to exist and grow. One has to wonder at what point such an entity becomes interested in perpetuating certain problems in order to guarantee its own survival. Oh dear, I sound like a cynic.
As we're discussing the pros and cons of all our new found connectivity via communication now available in the blink of an eye I must say, like you, I'm torn. On one hand I love having the connection to people I haven't seen in years or don't get to see anywhere nearly as often as I would like but on the other hand it is addicting, as you point out, hard to walk away from and at times a massive time waster. A couple of illustrations come to mind. Let's bring it home, literally.
Recently my ultra busy daughter made time to watch a movie with me at home. While I curled up in a chair anxious to give this precious time with her my undivided attention, she arrived to take up temporary residence on the sofa smart phone AND laptop in tow. She texted, looked up information about all the actors (the internet eliminates the "what was that other movie he was in?" discussion my parents used to have), updated her Facebook status, and did some shopping. I had a multitasking headache just watching her since I am only capable of doing one thing at a time. She finds it amusing (and irritating) that if she is telling me something I STOP what I'm doing to listen. To her, the inability to multitask is practically a character flaw while her diverted attention seems to me to border on rudeness, a generation gap of sorts. It's not just as an entire culture we can't seem to find the balance but in our personal relationships as well. How many times have you seen a couple, obviously on a first date, BOTH texting other people? It does seem as if our hyper-connectivity is damaging our ability to actually connect in any profound way. It is becoming harder and harder to simply enjoy someone's presence and to listen, as well as to be heard, both primary relationship skills. Well, at least they used to be. :)
Ah, but there are always two sides, aren't there? On Thanksgiving, I was the one craving a moment to catch up on Facebook which I did the first chance I got. There was a community there. Friends near and far were posting greetings and recipes, pictures of family, kind words and blessings were exchanged instantly between a large group of people whose day would not have included time to pick up the phone for a more personal greeting and with whom real "face" time proved impossible. In a way I felt that I had been a part of my friends' celebrations and it was nice to know that everyone was doing pretty much the same thing at the same time. Comforting somehow. It isn't the same as sitting across the table from someone, but something is better than nothing and it does fill in the gaps nicely between those times, allowing conversation to pick up in the "now" instead of having to "catch up" first.
As for "polarization that can come from accessing primarily only one (or one kind of) source," again that's something I think we saw the first roots of with cable. The advent of the 24 hour cable news channels became places where we now have "our" news and "their" news as opposed to THE news (facts are such annoying little things after all). All of which, as you allude to has carried over and mushroomed on the internet, in many ways worse because people can remain anonymous while spewing venom or ridiculous lies.
So once again we find ourselves searching for balance made all the more difficult by the constantly shifting sand of technology and isolation.
Here's a question for you my civic minded, history loving friend: Whether we're discussing ancient Rome, a Star Trek like future, or the issues we're discussing here, don't the problems seem to be the same ones over and over (or at least very similar)? We change the speed of course, and the window dressing but other than that it all always seems so...familiar.
Or am I wrong? (I'm sure you'll tell me. :))
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
For Every Action...
Now that I too have partaken of Gluttony and Gladiators (we just can’t seem to stop following Rome!) holiday times, I can return to the subject at hand!
The bus company that saw only busses as the solution: Yes, that is the parochial nature of many (nearly all?) organizations. As Churchill says, he advocated different things as the Lord of the Admiralty than he did as Home Secretary, even when he knew in his mind that he should be thinking broader. The society should decide what is best, not its selfish components. But, and this is a big but, the information in making those decisions must be accurate. That is where we fall down severely, especially in accounting for the actual costs of something. And THAT is a subject for another discussion! :)
We are diverted and amused. Little different, just far more alluring and inoculating, than Rome and its gladiator contests, circuses, and other sports and entertainment. Since it is "creative" and "interactive," the internet serves as even better diversion for the masses than television. Now, it does have empowering and contributing aspects to it as well, and I am hopeful for them. Whether they shift the balance remains to be seen. So far, judging from the state of the country and world, perhaps not.
Television was rightly criticized for being a passive and disconnected thing, with much connectivity and productivity wasted. But it also often curiously had some connective processes as well. As in, "did you see X last night?" and then an entire discussion would ensue. In that respect, it could reinforce some common culture and connectivity. In today's fractured streams, attention spans are wide and thin. It is rarer and rarer that people have a common entertainment/informative reference. That fact can drive people not only apart,but in a polarizing fashion. Rather a bit like we have today.
Television and the internet and our “smart” phones have driven wedges in our senses of community. Seeming to connect us, they often rather DISconnect us. And I agree with Shirky that time has been wasted in past TV watching. It has taken us away from each other, from the society, and from communal responsibility. It has reinforced an individualism that did not need reinforcing. The needs of the society have suffered because fewer are doing them, and fewer WANT to. Everything is atomized, the nuclear family ever more an insular and disconnected hard shell moving in a very loose collection of hard shells. Stress, defensiveness, suspicion, fear, exhaustion: all way up because we are this way. Public places and the commons—they are too often suffering from either neglect or overuse.
Yet all that is in many ways magnified even more by the internet.
The internet is far more addictive than TV has ever been, and one can certainly never say of the internet “there’s nothing on.” It is far harder to summon the will to “shut off” than TV has been, and because it has also invaded the workplace, its pervasive allure and availability is somewhat boundless and timeless.
And while occasionally someone has been unable to shut off the TV and go to bed, those instances are a far distant second to instances of that being the case with the internet and other instantly interactive communication/exploring. Whether it’s IMing, tweeting, reading and posting, online gaming, or just surfing, a large number of adults (let alone tweens and teens) have difficulty setting limits and parameters. Sleep, work, family, finances, and other responsibilities of non-electronic reality have often suffered. For a culture that knew the definitions of “balance” and “enough,” it would be a hard test. For this culture that knows not those definitions, it is often the perfect brand of addictive electronic heroin, and each “hit,” only increases the craving more. And certainly this writer is not immune to its lure.
I fully agree that the entrepreneurial aspects of the internet are both great and wonderful, with superb possibilities for the individual that did not exist before. My concern about economic productivity comes not from those possibilities, but how little they are in play compared to the diversionary aspects. Both entrepreneurial initiative and traditional work productivity seem to be sagging per capita (although not always per worker, a whole ‘nother discussion!), and the oft-trumpeted “spike” in entrepreneurial activity is, unfortunately, far too often merely the independent contractor facet from laid off workers having to work (without benefits) for their former employers.
With the internet, email, smart phones, etc., we have seemingly endless possibilities, but the simple truth is that we are still humans, with limitations on what we can absorb and accomplish. Just recognizing that fact might go a very long ways toward rectifying our maniacal obsession with doing ever more and more.
The bag is mixed. While the alternative information outlets of the internet are largely welcome in this age of big media in the hands of the few, there are also twin poles to consider: 1) polarization that can come from accessing primarily only one (or one kind of) source, and 2) confusion and disempowerment that can result from the deluge of misinformation, deliberately planted deflection, and twisting bile-producers.
Like Shirky, I too hope that we continue to find ways to create and connect using the internet, and I do greatly admire his vision. I thoroughly treasure having email and the internet. I think they are wonderful tools, with many provens and many possibilities. Like all tools however, they can be used excessively or inappropriately. Let us hope that we sift them sensibly—and along the way find our balance between reality and virtual reality, between society and ourselves.
The bus company that saw only busses as the solution: Yes, that is the parochial nature of many (nearly all?) organizations. As Churchill says, he advocated different things as the Lord of the Admiralty than he did as Home Secretary, even when he knew in his mind that he should be thinking broader. The society should decide what is best, not its selfish components. But, and this is a big but, the information in making those decisions must be accurate. That is where we fall down severely, especially in accounting for the actual costs of something. And THAT is a subject for another discussion! :)
We are diverted and amused. Little different, just far more alluring and inoculating, than Rome and its gladiator contests, circuses, and other sports and entertainment. Since it is "creative" and "interactive," the internet serves as even better diversion for the masses than television. Now, it does have empowering and contributing aspects to it as well, and I am hopeful for them. Whether they shift the balance remains to be seen. So far, judging from the state of the country and world, perhaps not.
Television was rightly criticized for being a passive and disconnected thing, with much connectivity and productivity wasted. But it also often curiously had some connective processes as well. As in, "did you see X last night?" and then an entire discussion would ensue. In that respect, it could reinforce some common culture and connectivity. In today's fractured streams, attention spans are wide and thin. It is rarer and rarer that people have a common entertainment/informative reference. That fact can drive people not only apart,but in a polarizing fashion. Rather a bit like we have today.
Television and the internet and our “smart” phones have driven wedges in our senses of community. Seeming to connect us, they often rather DISconnect us. And I agree with Shirky that time has been wasted in past TV watching. It has taken us away from each other, from the society, and from communal responsibility. It has reinforced an individualism that did not need reinforcing. The needs of the society have suffered because fewer are doing them, and fewer WANT to. Everything is atomized, the nuclear family ever more an insular and disconnected hard shell moving in a very loose collection of hard shells. Stress, defensiveness, suspicion, fear, exhaustion: all way up because we are this way. Public places and the commons—they are too often suffering from either neglect or overuse.
Yet all that is in many ways magnified even more by the internet.
The internet is far more addictive than TV has ever been, and one can certainly never say of the internet “there’s nothing on.” It is far harder to summon the will to “shut off” than TV has been, and because it has also invaded the workplace, its pervasive allure and availability is somewhat boundless and timeless.
And while occasionally someone has been unable to shut off the TV and go to bed, those instances are a far distant second to instances of that being the case with the internet and other instantly interactive communication/exploring. Whether it’s IMing, tweeting, reading and posting, online gaming, or just surfing, a large number of adults (let alone tweens and teens) have difficulty setting limits and parameters. Sleep, work, family, finances, and other responsibilities of non-electronic reality have often suffered. For a culture that knew the definitions of “balance” and “enough,” it would be a hard test. For this culture that knows not those definitions, it is often the perfect brand of addictive electronic heroin, and each “hit,” only increases the craving more. And certainly this writer is not immune to its lure.
I fully agree that the entrepreneurial aspects of the internet are both great and wonderful, with superb possibilities for the individual that did not exist before. My concern about economic productivity comes not from those possibilities, but how little they are in play compared to the diversionary aspects. Both entrepreneurial initiative and traditional work productivity seem to be sagging per capita (although not always per worker, a whole ‘nother discussion!), and the oft-trumpeted “spike” in entrepreneurial activity is, unfortunately, far too often merely the independent contractor facet from laid off workers having to work (without benefits) for their former employers.
With the internet, email, smart phones, etc., we have seemingly endless possibilities, but the simple truth is that we are still humans, with limitations on what we can absorb and accomplish. Just recognizing that fact might go a very long ways toward rectifying our maniacal obsession with doing ever more and more.
The bag is mixed. While the alternative information outlets of the internet are largely welcome in this age of big media in the hands of the few, there are also twin poles to consider: 1) polarization that can come from accessing primarily only one (or one kind of) source, and 2) confusion and disempowerment that can result from the deluge of misinformation, deliberately planted deflection, and twisting bile-producers.
Like Shirky, I too hope that we continue to find ways to create and connect using the internet, and I do greatly admire his vision. I thoroughly treasure having email and the internet. I think they are wonderful tools, with many provens and many possibilities. Like all tools however, they can be used excessively or inappropriately. Let us hope that we sift them sensibly—and along the way find our balance between reality and virtual reality, between society and ourselves.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Action and Distraction
Professor J,
I'm posting early in the week since I'm sure that we, as well as our readers, will all be using our time over the next few days to catch up with friends and family, eat, and of course,watch copious amounts of football! :)
Shirky is using the term "cognitive surplus" mainly to refer to what is created out of time previously spent watching television in one's spare time after work, caring for children etc. He notes that worldwide the 3 main uses of time are: work, sleep, TV. While some people may be using the internet as a means of escape and denial, they are very likely the same people who would have previously been using television for the same purposes. But for many when the opportunities change, the behavior changes. One of the points he makes is that while people make fun of a woman who blogs about her knitting or a man who plays role playing games online, few people would have made fun of anyone sitting comatose on the sofa passively soaking up programming from the six o'clock news to the Late Show. Somehow THAT was acceptable.
While I agree with you that a lack of focus is troublesome, as there are endless diversions and distractions, I'd say we've been moving down that road since the introduction of cable TV and the remote. The competition for attention today IS a bit overwhelming and IS having an effect. Here's an article (that includes an informative video) suggesting that this generation's brain may actually be wired differently as a result of their constant connections.
The internet does indeed both connect and isolate, yet television mainly just isolates as watching is a solitary activity for the most part with the exception of family viewing (rare today with TVs in every room) or the occasional gathering to watch something like election coverage or major sporting events. So our computers far surpass the idiot box as a means of connection, whatever isolating pitfalls there may be. While everyone predicted that isolation would be one of the biggest impacts of the internet, it is actually being used to coordinate real world contact more often than anyone imagined. Even within the category of connection however there are positives and negatives. While we get Pick Up Pal, which is sort of the Craig's list of carpooling, and the ability to easily connect with friends, we also get cyber-bullying and the fact that last year in the U.K. Facebook was mentioned in 1 in 5 divorce petitions according to this article.
An interesting observation Shirky makes about Pick Up Pal is that the bus company in the city where this program was implemented originally tried to get the site shut down. He submits that the bus company wasn't interested in solving the transportation problem. They were interested in solving the transportation problem WITH BUSES. Any organization designed to solve some dilemma, also has an interest in seeing that the difficulty is never actually solved. But, that is a whole other discussion!
One of the things that the author brings up is that we don't know how technology will be used until people are given access to it. Previously held notions often fail to hold up and he uses the example of what he calls "milkshake mistakes". A fast food company that sells a lot of milkshakes did some research and was shocked to learn that the sales were most brisk during morning rush hour. While the executives had only imagined the milkshake as a treat or dessert customers were using it as a breakfast food. They had failed to ask "What is the customer hiring the milkshake to do?" The milkshake was a breakfast staple for many because it was; easily obtained at a drive through, filling, not messy to eat, and could be consumed with one hand.
Economic productivity: You are right in some respects but I think that the benefits in this area far outweigh the negatives. That woman with the blog about her knitting can now post pictures and take orders, bypassing the "gatekeeper" store owner who would have had to agree to carry her items before. If that avenue was blocked, her only access to customers would have been friends and family and maybe word of mouth. Anyone with a little entrepreneurial spirit can open a virtual storefront now,self publish a book which can be printed on demand eliminating the need for inventory, or just boost the name recognition of a brick and mortar small business.
"We are quickly becoming one another's infrastructure."
~Clay Shirky
Shirky has hope that we will keep finding more ways to create and connect using the internet. His book contains many stories about how people are increasingly using the CS/tech combination to solve problems that are communal and he sees endless possibilities in how it could be used to find solutions that would be beneficial on a global scale. Now that may be overly optimistic, but I had to love that the guy had VISION, as you've said before, something so needed today.
A bit of housekeeping: We've added a search gadget to help you find a previous post you may be looking for or a link that we've provided you'd like to quickly locate. Also you will now see a box "Currently Up For Discussion" that will allow you to quickly see what the topic du jour is.
I'm posting early in the week since I'm sure that we, as well as our readers, will all be using our time over the next few days to catch up with friends and family, eat, and of course,watch copious amounts of football! :)
Shirky is using the term "cognitive surplus" mainly to refer to what is created out of time previously spent watching television in one's spare time after work, caring for children etc. He notes that worldwide the 3 main uses of time are: work, sleep, TV. While some people may be using the internet as a means of escape and denial, they are very likely the same people who would have previously been using television for the same purposes. But for many when the opportunities change, the behavior changes. One of the points he makes is that while people make fun of a woman who blogs about her knitting or a man who plays role playing games online, few people would have made fun of anyone sitting comatose on the sofa passively soaking up programming from the six o'clock news to the Late Show. Somehow THAT was acceptable.
While I agree with you that a lack of focus is troublesome, as there are endless diversions and distractions, I'd say we've been moving down that road since the introduction of cable TV and the remote. The competition for attention today IS a bit overwhelming and IS having an effect. Here's an article (that includes an informative video) suggesting that this generation's brain may actually be wired differently as a result of their constant connections.
The internet does indeed both connect and isolate, yet television mainly just isolates as watching is a solitary activity for the most part with the exception of family viewing (rare today with TVs in every room) or the occasional gathering to watch something like election coverage or major sporting events. So our computers far surpass the idiot box as a means of connection, whatever isolating pitfalls there may be. While everyone predicted that isolation would be one of the biggest impacts of the internet, it is actually being used to coordinate real world contact more often than anyone imagined. Even within the category of connection however there are positives and negatives. While we get Pick Up Pal, which is sort of the Craig's list of carpooling, and the ability to easily connect with friends, we also get cyber-bullying and the fact that last year in the U.K. Facebook was mentioned in 1 in 5 divorce petitions according to this article.
An interesting observation Shirky makes about Pick Up Pal is that the bus company in the city where this program was implemented originally tried to get the site shut down. He submits that the bus company wasn't interested in solving the transportation problem. They were interested in solving the transportation problem WITH BUSES. Any organization designed to solve some dilemma, also has an interest in seeing that the difficulty is never actually solved. But, that is a whole other discussion!
One of the things that the author brings up is that we don't know how technology will be used until people are given access to it. Previously held notions often fail to hold up and he uses the example of what he calls "milkshake mistakes". A fast food company that sells a lot of milkshakes did some research and was shocked to learn that the sales were most brisk during morning rush hour. While the executives had only imagined the milkshake as a treat or dessert customers were using it as a breakfast food. They had failed to ask "What is the customer hiring the milkshake to do?" The milkshake was a breakfast staple for many because it was; easily obtained at a drive through, filling, not messy to eat, and could be consumed with one hand.
Economic productivity: You are right in some respects but I think that the benefits in this area far outweigh the negatives. That woman with the blog about her knitting can now post pictures and take orders, bypassing the "gatekeeper" store owner who would have had to agree to carry her items before. If that avenue was blocked, her only access to customers would have been friends and family and maybe word of mouth. Anyone with a little entrepreneurial spirit can open a virtual storefront now,self publish a book which can be printed on demand eliminating the need for inventory, or just boost the name recognition of a brick and mortar small business.
"We are quickly becoming one another's infrastructure."
~Clay Shirky
Shirky has hope that we will keep finding more ways to create and connect using the internet. His book contains many stories about how people are increasingly using the CS/tech combination to solve problems that are communal and he sees endless possibilities in how it could be used to find solutions that would be beneficial on a global scale. Now that may be overly optimistic, but I had to love that the guy had VISION, as you've said before, something so needed today.
A bit of housekeeping: We've added a search gadget to help you find a previous post you may be looking for or a link that we've provided you'd like to quickly locate. Also you will now see a box "Currently Up For Discussion" that will allow you to quickly see what the topic du jour is.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Possibility and Diversion
Madame M:
IS God trying to impart those truths? Maybe He is leaving it up to the souls of the immortal world to do that? But I guess that would mean He would still be doing it indirectly, so maybe that is parsing the part about impart. :)
Moving from passive to active is usually a better thing, I agree. And having some avenue for a creative process, especially to organize and land thoughts, is superb and needed.
Socialization and the web and the contribution of “surplus,” seem to me to be a mixture, part good and part not so good. As for related aspects of the psychology of socialization and “contribution” and the web, here again I see a mixture, although a less even one: part is good in that it gives you free thinking access, part is bad in that it both connects and isolates, can hide you and blind you.
Shirky for his part seems to be giddy with all the possibilities of active and free contribution. I am excited about that as well, yet there are other aspects to consider. First, not all cognitive surplus is a net gain—not by a long shot. Many who don’t have jobs but should (or should be looking for, or preparing), divert their time and energy in marginality and live an ultimately unsustainable and unrealistic pseudo-life via the web. The process of obsessive “surplussing” can also contribute to the already nearly epidemic lack of focus by fanatics of electronic involvement. Second, but maybe it should be first, is relegating of economic productivity. People who are contributing surplus are often not contributing basic economic productivity, but should be. Life is not virtual, and certainly economic life isn’t. This country already has a big enough problem with denial. Third, there is a concept of balance that is perhaps being missed.
However, I am somewhat handicapped in all this because I have not read the full works, and shall defer to you to fill in the blanks or correct misperceptions!
While I might sympathize with a portion of what your aforementioned critic intimates, such crass arrogance, narrow materialism, and fealty to controllers/”managers” so undermines any point(s) he might make, I will not only share your disdain, I will say that his attitude is why Gross Domestic Product and general economic thought are each not worthwhile measures of the economic health and productivity of a society. For far too long we have not figured in or much valued the highly valuable (and often essential) unpaid work of society, the work that undergirds society and makes possible so much, and that indeed, the society could not function without.
IS God trying to impart those truths? Maybe He is leaving it up to the souls of the immortal world to do that? But I guess that would mean He would still be doing it indirectly, so maybe that is parsing the part about impart. :)
Moving from passive to active is usually a better thing, I agree. And having some avenue for a creative process, especially to organize and land thoughts, is superb and needed.
Socialization and the web and the contribution of “surplus,” seem to me to be a mixture, part good and part not so good. As for related aspects of the psychology of socialization and “contribution” and the web, here again I see a mixture, although a less even one: part is good in that it gives you free thinking access, part is bad in that it both connects and isolates, can hide you and blind you.
Shirky for his part seems to be giddy with all the possibilities of active and free contribution. I am excited about that as well, yet there are other aspects to consider. First, not all cognitive surplus is a net gain—not by a long shot. Many who don’t have jobs but should (or should be looking for, or preparing), divert their time and energy in marginality and live an ultimately unsustainable and unrealistic pseudo-life via the web. The process of obsessive “surplussing” can also contribute to the already nearly epidemic lack of focus by fanatics of electronic involvement. Second, but maybe it should be first, is relegating of economic productivity. People who are contributing surplus are often not contributing basic economic productivity, but should be. Life is not virtual, and certainly economic life isn’t. This country already has a big enough problem with denial. Third, there is a concept of balance that is perhaps being missed.
However, I am somewhat handicapped in all this because I have not read the full works, and shall defer to you to fill in the blanks or correct misperceptions!
While I might sympathize with a portion of what your aforementioned critic intimates, such crass arrogance, narrow materialism, and fealty to controllers/”managers” so undermines any point(s) he might make, I will not only share your disdain, I will say that his attitude is why Gross Domestic Product and general economic thought are each not worthwhile measures of the economic health and productivity of a society. For far too long we have not figured in or much valued the highly valuable (and often essential) unpaid work of society, the work that undergirds society and makes possible so much, and that indeed, the society could not function without.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A Creative Revolt
Professor J,
Reading several books at once, a "bad" habit? Well, it's one I share with you, then. I generally have at least 3 or 4 going at once all from different genres so I know how you feel. There seems to be usually some lengthy tome lingering around while self help, thrillers, biographies, etc. rotate a bit more quickly.
Rationality is indeed a gift from the Creator and can certainly be infused with the warmth of divinity. It takes on a particular chill however when the possibility of anything other than it is discounted, Ayn Rand style. You and I would probably agree on John Donne's quote "Reason is our soul's left hand, faith her right." Both things are useful to move us forward toward revelations of truth God is trying to impart.
Now, excuse me while I jump parsecs to another subject, we can always jump back to this one if you want.
If you have read lengthy reviews of Cognitive Surplus and Drive then you have the main idea. I love these kinds of works where the author takes available information and looks at it in new and fresh ways. Freakonomics and The Tipping Point come to mind.
"The People Formerly Known as the Audience" is a term coined by NYU professor Jay Rosen, and he describes them thus:
"The people formerly known as the audience are those who were on the receiving end of a media system that ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, with high entry fees and a few firms competing to speak very loudly while the rest of the population listened in isolation from one another-- and who today are not in a situation like that at all."
If it's true as author Clay Shirky asserts, that Americans spend 700 Billion hours a year watching TV one must wonder what could be accomplished with those hours. The tide seems to be turning with this generation though, the number of hours they spend watching is going down, and when they do watch they are not passively absorbing programming. They post opinions, share clips, piece together their own creative tributes and post them via Youtube. How many masterpieces are being created? Probably few, but the author makes a point which I thought was key, that it is the leap from doing NOTHING to doing SOMETHING that is transformational.
He asserts that "Creating something personal even of a mediocre quality has a different appeal than consuming something made by others, even something of high quality." To me this struck home and related to our other book, Drive. This idea (largely ignored) that people are doing things, often complicated and time consuming things for the intrinsic value alone explains, for instance, our blogs. There is something rewarding in the creation of the thing as well as having a place for thoughts and ideas to land, and call home, which is somehow satisfying.
In the past this motivational component has been overlooked as is evidenced in an the attitude of a friend's husband. She has a delightfully entertaining and informative food blog, her husband however doesn't "see the point" since there is no monetary reward in connection to it.
Sadly, it boggles the mind to imagine all of the thoughts, inventions, art, ideas, and other bursts of creativity that have been lost because millions spent their cognitive surplus doing the only thing that was both widely available and accepted, watching television. If they were doing something else it was difficult to connect to a group of others who shared their interests or were interested in discussing the same ideas.
The gatekeepers are losing their power and have taken to writing books like, The Cult of the Amateur in which the author says "Shared, unmanaged effort might be fine for picnics and bowling leagues, but serious work is done for money, by people who work in proper organizations, with managers directing their work."
Interesting to this housewife that he has just belittled all the work I have been doing for the last twenty years. Again, I have problems with the "experts".
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :) Fortunately, all that you have listed here is perfectly adequate for a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as this blog. :)
Reading several books at once, a "bad" habit? Well, it's one I share with you, then. I generally have at least 3 or 4 going at once all from different genres so I know how you feel. There seems to be usually some lengthy tome lingering around while self help, thrillers, biographies, etc. rotate a bit more quickly.
Rationality is indeed a gift from the Creator and can certainly be infused with the warmth of divinity. It takes on a particular chill however when the possibility of anything other than it is discounted, Ayn Rand style. You and I would probably agree on John Donne's quote "Reason is our soul's left hand, faith her right." Both things are useful to move us forward toward revelations of truth God is trying to impart.
Now, excuse me while I jump parsecs to another subject, we can always jump back to this one if you want.
If you have read lengthy reviews of Cognitive Surplus and Drive then you have the main idea. I love these kinds of works where the author takes available information and looks at it in new and fresh ways. Freakonomics and The Tipping Point come to mind.
"The People Formerly Known as the Audience" is a term coined by NYU professor Jay Rosen, and he describes them thus:
"The people formerly known as the audience are those who were on the receiving end of a media system that ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, with high entry fees and a few firms competing to speak very loudly while the rest of the population listened in isolation from one another-- and who today are not in a situation like that at all."
If it's true as author Clay Shirky asserts, that Americans spend 700 Billion hours a year watching TV one must wonder what could be accomplished with those hours. The tide seems to be turning with this generation though, the number of hours they spend watching is going down, and when they do watch they are not passively absorbing programming. They post opinions, share clips, piece together their own creative tributes and post them via Youtube. How many masterpieces are being created? Probably few, but the author makes a point which I thought was key, that it is the leap from doing NOTHING to doing SOMETHING that is transformational.
He asserts that "Creating something personal even of a mediocre quality has a different appeal than consuming something made by others, even something of high quality." To me this struck home and related to our other book, Drive. This idea (largely ignored) that people are doing things, often complicated and time consuming things for the intrinsic value alone explains, for instance, our blogs. There is something rewarding in the creation of the thing as well as having a place for thoughts and ideas to land, and call home, which is somehow satisfying.
In the past this motivational component has been overlooked as is evidenced in an the attitude of a friend's husband. She has a delightfully entertaining and informative food blog, her husband however doesn't "see the point" since there is no monetary reward in connection to it.
Sadly, it boggles the mind to imagine all of the thoughts, inventions, art, ideas, and other bursts of creativity that have been lost because millions spent their cognitive surplus doing the only thing that was both widely available and accepted, watching television. If they were doing something else it was difficult to connect to a group of others who shared their interests or were interested in discussing the same ideas.
The gatekeepers are losing their power and have taken to writing books like, The Cult of the Amateur in which the author says "Shared, unmanaged effort might be fine for picnics and bowling leagues, but serious work is done for money, by people who work in proper organizations, with managers directing their work."
Interesting to this housewife that he has just belittled all the work I have been doing for the last twenty years. Again, I have problems with the "experts".
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :) Fortunately, all that you have listed here is perfectly adequate for a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as this blog. :)
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Impulse Engines
Madame M,
Of course it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its lack of sophistication. Sometimes something is both simple and true. But not nearly as often as demagogues would have us believe.
To love and be loved, to learn, to understand, to create: universal desires across civilizations, as Toynbee so ably related to us. Rationality need not always be cold, however; if, as Jefferson said, it is a gift from the Creator, then perhaps there is an infusion of the warm divine in it.
Although I have read extensive reviews on the writings of those gentlemen (Pink and Shirky), I have not read their full works. Feel free to launch commentary if you like! I am in the process of finishing multiple books nearly all at once (a [bad?] habit of mine—it appears for the longest time that I am accomplishing little, and then, presto, the tabulation goes up quickly), so I too will have books to comment on, in addition to other subjects of some import!
[Caution: The following “Professions of a Prof” are the musings of a mortal. Your mileage may vary. :)]
You have brought up the parent/child context and God. The condemnation dilemma—that is, how could an ALL-loving and utterly perfect God condemn anyone to never-ending punishment, especially if a human parent would never do that to their child, and most especially not to a young child, and we are far less than dim 2 year olds to an omniscient God—has always seemed in my thoughts to have ready possible answer: we condemn ourselves. IF that is the case (which I don’t KNOW it is or isn’t, lol), then perhaps the soul, liberated upon mortal world exit from its mortal limitations (especially awareness) and petty human selfishness and justification, becomes aware in every measure of every sin of commission and omission, and of every effect and every connection of every sin, and is overwhelmed with infinite shame and spiritwracked guilt and remorse. This feeling of seemingly indelible soulstain makes the soul feel irredeemably tarnished, utterly impure, and completely unworthy to be in the presence of, let alone WITH, a pure, sinless, God of complete love. And so it shuts itself away from God, seeking ways to purify itself, and it is this being away from God, utterly opposite of what at its deepest level the soul wants (to be with God more than anything or anyone in the multiverse), is intensely painful—more so than even one who is cut off from all loved ones, from family, from friends, from everything valued, because of one’s actions. A soul perhaps may even feel so evil-ized that it seeks active torture, or even oblivion, and may even find ready beings willing to attempt (or give the appearance at least) to oblige. And that all this has perhaps been the free will agreement from the beginning, before any soul was mortal-born: that what the soul does in mortality it can consider binding to itself.
To a God who IS love, this would, one might presume, be saddening, but with free-will being a prime directive, said God would not interfere. But ah, ah, that God would do the ultimate to show love as the strongest force, to say to His creations about their sins: “We don’t care about ANY of that; we experienced mortality ourselves, died ourselves, FOR YOU, to show YOU, EACH of YOU, that you are loved despite anything you have done or could ever do. We took it all on ourselves, see? Atoned for everything if you will just let it be so! Please stop punishing yourselves. Please come home.”
Knowing that every sin on earth is counted by ourselves, God would then likely want us to, first, reduce sin to a minimum, and secondly and foremost, feel the remorse in this life and let Him wash its staining aspects away now, so that, in the next life, we can watch a review of the sin and all its effects without experiencing the spiritwrack—and the impurity and all it might entail in the long process of purification (perhaps even another mortal life) and being away from the one who loves us absolutely unconditionally and completely.
Eternal punishment? Where’s the sense (or the love) in that? Weren’t even the vilest, most earthly evil sinners given a pure soul by God, and that soul upon mortal release knows what it has done? It may punish ITSELF far more than anyone would wish or even think sufficient—and no one good but it wants to punish. It needs everyone’s love and forgiveness, especially the love and forgiveness from the souls whose mortal existences the stained soul did evil to. It also needs love from its soul companions who have known it through eternities. And it centrally receives the love from God, who wants the soul to let go and let Love wash it clean, but at least to know that, at any moment, it can come home and is eagerly awaited. Even a soul that could forgive itself for what it did while in an awareness-limited childlike state like mortality might still feel a need to purify itself of the stain it feels first, de-rationalize its behavior and examine its mortal life fully, and grow in heavenly attributes, before it was “ready for the next level.” And mighty readily welcome the prayers of those in earthly existence and in heavenly existence to perhaps speed the purification process. And would perhaps hope and maybe subtly work for a transition of the earthly world toward a more heavenly consciousness, for that could speed the purification process for itself and others.
If the above is the case, that is, if we ourselves do the condemning (and maybe Matheson is right that all hells and purgatories are private and maybe even all heavens are a bit privately formed too, at least culturally or religiously), THEN such an act of the Cross “showing ultimate love and absolute valuing” and freeing us from punishing ourselves if we will accept the sacrifice, does mean a great deal of something. THAT interpretation has always made more sense to me than the traditional dogmas of salvation, externally mandated perpetual punishment, God being angry, etc. And “learning to love” really then can be one of the prime purposes, or maybe THE main purpose, in this life.
Or maybe each soul is on a different journey, and is at a different level, with some ready to “go to the Light” immediately after Life Review and be done with the whole process, and others who go another path for now.
Whatever is the case, I think it’s asinine not to trust in God. I know that this is standing the “If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, if I am right, I have gained everything or at least averted eternal torment” argument on its head, but even in our highly limited mortal empathy and mortal love, if we attempt to see not just with God’s eyes, but as God sees, we can shed the human emotions of revenge or justice and focus on Love. And Love’s associated facets of tolerance, brotherhood, and forgiveness, so aptly demonstrated in the story of Jesus. In a world that could never forget its slights (and largely still can’t), Jesus was not about condemning, not even for the seemingly deserving. Such a God will make all things right in the end, and most of the foolish little things we little amoebas argue over and fret about here will be shown to mean next to nothing. Yes, I believe God desires that we spare ourselves as much of the agony of having our immortal essences (who KNOW right from wrong) see and experience with our own immortal eyes and feelings all we have done, an agony none of us mortals can truly imagine. For if we are not just basically good, but inherently GOOD spirits, pure at the start, then how much it must pain us to feel those stains, to feel on an immortal level the hurt we have caused? But God’s Light shines always for us, with no condemnation, and only wants us to come Home and be together. And we will when we’re ready.
Ah, listen to me, I sound like someone fused a theologian and James Redfield. :)
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :)
Of course it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its lack of sophistication. Sometimes something is both simple and true. But not nearly as often as demagogues would have us believe.
To love and be loved, to learn, to understand, to create: universal desires across civilizations, as Toynbee so ably related to us. Rationality need not always be cold, however; if, as Jefferson said, it is a gift from the Creator, then perhaps there is an infusion of the warm divine in it.
Although I have read extensive reviews on the writings of those gentlemen (Pink and Shirky), I have not read their full works. Feel free to launch commentary if you like! I am in the process of finishing multiple books nearly all at once (a [bad?] habit of mine—it appears for the longest time that I am accomplishing little, and then, presto, the tabulation goes up quickly), so I too will have books to comment on, in addition to other subjects of some import!
[Caution: The following “Professions of a Prof” are the musings of a mortal. Your mileage may vary. :)]
You have brought up the parent/child context and God. The condemnation dilemma—that is, how could an ALL-loving and utterly perfect God condemn anyone to never-ending punishment, especially if a human parent would never do that to their child, and most especially not to a young child, and we are far less than dim 2 year olds to an omniscient God—has always seemed in my thoughts to have ready possible answer: we condemn ourselves. IF that is the case (which I don’t KNOW it is or isn’t, lol), then perhaps the soul, liberated upon mortal world exit from its mortal limitations (especially awareness) and petty human selfishness and justification, becomes aware in every measure of every sin of commission and omission, and of every effect and every connection of every sin, and is overwhelmed with infinite shame and spiritwracked guilt and remorse. This feeling of seemingly indelible soulstain makes the soul feel irredeemably tarnished, utterly impure, and completely unworthy to be in the presence of, let alone WITH, a pure, sinless, God of complete love. And so it shuts itself away from God, seeking ways to purify itself, and it is this being away from God, utterly opposite of what at its deepest level the soul wants (to be with God more than anything or anyone in the multiverse), is intensely painful—more so than even one who is cut off from all loved ones, from family, from friends, from everything valued, because of one’s actions. A soul perhaps may even feel so evil-ized that it seeks active torture, or even oblivion, and may even find ready beings willing to attempt (or give the appearance at least) to oblige. And that all this has perhaps been the free will agreement from the beginning, before any soul was mortal-born: that what the soul does in mortality it can consider binding to itself.
To a God who IS love, this would, one might presume, be saddening, but with free-will being a prime directive, said God would not interfere. But ah, ah, that God would do the ultimate to show love as the strongest force, to say to His creations about their sins: “We don’t care about ANY of that; we experienced mortality ourselves, died ourselves, FOR YOU, to show YOU, EACH of YOU, that you are loved despite anything you have done or could ever do. We took it all on ourselves, see? Atoned for everything if you will just let it be so! Please stop punishing yourselves. Please come home.”
Knowing that every sin on earth is counted by ourselves, God would then likely want us to, first, reduce sin to a minimum, and secondly and foremost, feel the remorse in this life and let Him wash its staining aspects away now, so that, in the next life, we can watch a review of the sin and all its effects without experiencing the spiritwrack—and the impurity and all it might entail in the long process of purification (perhaps even another mortal life) and being away from the one who loves us absolutely unconditionally and completely.
Eternal punishment? Where’s the sense (or the love) in that? Weren’t even the vilest, most earthly evil sinners given a pure soul by God, and that soul upon mortal release knows what it has done? It may punish ITSELF far more than anyone would wish or even think sufficient—and no one good but it wants to punish. It needs everyone’s love and forgiveness, especially the love and forgiveness from the souls whose mortal existences the stained soul did evil to. It also needs love from its soul companions who have known it through eternities. And it centrally receives the love from God, who wants the soul to let go and let Love wash it clean, but at least to know that, at any moment, it can come home and is eagerly awaited. Even a soul that could forgive itself for what it did while in an awareness-limited childlike state like mortality might still feel a need to purify itself of the stain it feels first, de-rationalize its behavior and examine its mortal life fully, and grow in heavenly attributes, before it was “ready for the next level.” And mighty readily welcome the prayers of those in earthly existence and in heavenly existence to perhaps speed the purification process. And would perhaps hope and maybe subtly work for a transition of the earthly world toward a more heavenly consciousness, for that could speed the purification process for itself and others.
If the above is the case, that is, if we ourselves do the condemning (and maybe Matheson is right that all hells and purgatories are private and maybe even all heavens are a bit privately formed too, at least culturally or religiously), THEN such an act of the Cross “showing ultimate love and absolute valuing” and freeing us from punishing ourselves if we will accept the sacrifice, does mean a great deal of something. THAT interpretation has always made more sense to me than the traditional dogmas of salvation, externally mandated perpetual punishment, God being angry, etc. And “learning to love” really then can be one of the prime purposes, or maybe THE main purpose, in this life.
Or maybe each soul is on a different journey, and is at a different level, with some ready to “go to the Light” immediately after Life Review and be done with the whole process, and others who go another path for now.
Whatever is the case, I think it’s asinine not to trust in God. I know that this is standing the “If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, if I am right, I have gained everything or at least averted eternal torment” argument on its head, but even in our highly limited mortal empathy and mortal love, if we attempt to see not just with God’s eyes, but as God sees, we can shed the human emotions of revenge or justice and focus on Love. And Love’s associated facets of tolerance, brotherhood, and forgiveness, so aptly demonstrated in the story of Jesus. In a world that could never forget its slights (and largely still can’t), Jesus was not about condemning, not even for the seemingly deserving. Such a God will make all things right in the end, and most of the foolish little things we little amoebas argue over and fret about here will be shown to mean next to nothing. Yes, I believe God desires that we spare ourselves as much of the agony of having our immortal essences (who KNOW right from wrong) see and experience with our own immortal eyes and feelings all we have done, an agony none of us mortals can truly imagine. For if we are not just basically good, but inherently GOOD spirits, pure at the start, then how much it must pain us to feel those stains, to feel on an immortal level the hurt we have caused? But God’s Light shines always for us, with no condemnation, and only wants us to come Home and be together. And we will when we’re ready.
Ah, listen to me, I sound like someone fused a theologian and James Redfield. :)
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Skimming the Surface
First, thanks to all our veterans for their service!
Professor J,
"Have I involved you in double postage by this loquacity?" We are fortunate that T.C's question to Emerson is one we needn't ask! (I did warn you that you may be subjected to numerous quotes until I finish this book, didn't I?) You'll find a few more quotes at the end of this post. Lewis says that friends rarely talk about friendship the way lovers talk about love, but these two actually spent a good bit of time discussing how much the relationship meant to them. Unusual for men, especially by today's standards. Their poignant words and tender inquiries after one another's welfare (between economics, religion, politics) are nothing short of enchanting to me.
I share your reluctance to get blogged down (lol) in theological weeds and for all the reasons you so thoroughly laid out. I have no desire to spend large amounts of time and energy twisting ourselves in knots over things that others have spent lifetimes trying to untangle. We can however skim along a spiritual surface if you so desire, seeking common ground. Sound a little less like "poison"? ;) Not to worry, I doubt any discussion of ours will ever take on that character.
E/C side note: At times Emerson did withhold letters from his friend as a sort of epistolary punishment which seems rather petty for such a notable thinker; occasionally some of their discussions did leave them "frothingly polarized". Surprising, somewhat that two such powerful and ingenious minds could do what John Maxwell warns of and value their opinions over people (though it was only temporary).
Richard Feynman: Once again I must thank you for introducing me to someone whose work I was previously unaware of. I like him and his endlessly mesmerizing thought process, very much. You know, of course, I didn't stop at just the one video. :) I'd be very interested to know who or what influenced his father's thinking. I find it interesting though, that he rejects certain ideas because they are too simple, seemingly discounting the possibility that anything could ever be both simple and true. Do you think it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its unsophistication?
As for the "natural desires" I referenced I merely meant those universal deep human desires; to be loved and known, to create, to learn and understand, and to have our questions answered in some way. A world of cold rationality offers few answers for the things we often ponder deep in the night when we are alone with ourselves.
You have correctly surmised this housewife's definition of a theological-free-for-all. We'll have to make sure to include it in our dictionary. lol
"Jump parsecs?" Is that even possible sans a certain star-ship? ;) As for a change of subject I recently finished a very interesting book, Cognitive Surplus, about how the internet and our new found connectivity is changing us from a society of consumers to one of creators. This article from Wired Magazine makes interesting comparisons between it and another book I enjoyed, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and gives a brief overview of both. Drive was surprising because we are often wrong about what incentives work and don't work with people. It seems we have all underestimated the intrinsic motivation for doing things. Have you read either of those?
More Emerson/Carlyle:
"You express a desire to know something of myself. Account me 'a drop in the ocean seeking another drop." ~E.
"A friendly thought is the purest gift that man can afford to man." ~ C.
"My Dear Friend, -- I hope you do not measure my love by the tardiness of my messages. I have few pleasures like that of receiving your kind and eloquent letters. I should be most impatient of the long interval between one and another, but that they savor always of Eternity, and promise me a friendship and friendly inspiration not reckoned or ended by days or years. " ~E
And later in the same letter, the first after the death of his brother, Emerson wrote " We want but two or three friends, but these we cannot do without, and they serve us in every thought we think."
Professor J,
"Have I involved you in double postage by this loquacity?" We are fortunate that T.C's question to Emerson is one we needn't ask! (I did warn you that you may be subjected to numerous quotes until I finish this book, didn't I?) You'll find a few more quotes at the end of this post. Lewis says that friends rarely talk about friendship the way lovers talk about love, but these two actually spent a good bit of time discussing how much the relationship meant to them. Unusual for men, especially by today's standards. Their poignant words and tender inquiries after one another's welfare (between economics, religion, politics) are nothing short of enchanting to me.
I share your reluctance to get blogged down (lol) in theological weeds and for all the reasons you so thoroughly laid out. I have no desire to spend large amounts of time and energy twisting ourselves in knots over things that others have spent lifetimes trying to untangle. We can however skim along a spiritual surface if you so desire, seeking common ground. Sound a little less like "poison"? ;) Not to worry, I doubt any discussion of ours will ever take on that character.
E/C side note: At times Emerson did withhold letters from his friend as a sort of epistolary punishment which seems rather petty for such a notable thinker; occasionally some of their discussions did leave them "frothingly polarized". Surprising, somewhat that two such powerful and ingenious minds could do what John Maxwell warns of and value their opinions over people (though it was only temporary).
Richard Feynman: Once again I must thank you for introducing me to someone whose work I was previously unaware of. I like him and his endlessly mesmerizing thought process, very much. You know, of course, I didn't stop at just the one video. :) I'd be very interested to know who or what influenced his father's thinking. I find it interesting though, that he rejects certain ideas because they are too simple, seemingly discounting the possibility that anything could ever be both simple and true. Do you think it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its unsophistication?
As for the "natural desires" I referenced I merely meant those universal deep human desires; to be loved and known, to create, to learn and understand, and to have our questions answered in some way. A world of cold rationality offers few answers for the things we often ponder deep in the night when we are alone with ourselves.
You have correctly surmised this housewife's definition of a theological-free-for-all. We'll have to make sure to include it in our dictionary. lol
"Jump parsecs?" Is that even possible sans a certain star-ship? ;) As for a change of subject I recently finished a very interesting book, Cognitive Surplus, about how the internet and our new found connectivity is changing us from a society of consumers to one of creators. This article from Wired Magazine makes interesting comparisons between it and another book I enjoyed, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and gives a brief overview of both. Drive was surprising because we are often wrong about what incentives work and don't work with people. It seems we have all underestimated the intrinsic motivation for doing things. Have you read either of those?
More Emerson/Carlyle:
"You express a desire to know something of myself. Account me 'a drop in the ocean seeking another drop." ~E.
"A friendly thought is the purest gift that man can afford to man." ~ C.
"My Dear Friend, -- I hope you do not measure my love by the tardiness of my messages. I have few pleasures like that of receiving your kind and eloquent letters. I should be most impatient of the long interval between one and another, but that they savor always of Eternity, and promise me a friendship and friendly inspiration not reckoned or ended by days or years. " ~E
And later in the same letter, the first after the death of his brother, Emerson wrote " We want but two or three friends, but these we cannot do without, and they serve us in every thought we think."
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Parameters
Madame M:
Although we will walk our own path, as you allude to we could do a lot worse than following Emerson/Carlyle or Lewis/”The American Woman.”
One can (as others HAVE) get into all sorts of discussion, speculation, and disagreement about the “true” nature of the Christian Old Testament: Examples being 1) it’s just an ethnocentric, culturally focused, and narrow view from what would otherwise be a rather tangential Middle Eastern people who got notoriety because they eventually wrote their oral history down and then guarded it with zealous and slightly xenophobic fervor; to, 2) that the Hebrews’ deity figure was a powerful alien who has since moved on, to, 3) their deity was an actual deity-like figure, but was not “God,” as evidenced by the many emotional and seemingly human drawbacks possessed by said deity, to 4) their deity WAS God, but in avatar or reduced consciousness form (similar to, although not identical, to William James’ concept).
Leaving aside those (and other) discussions, I think it worth mentioning that, whatever one believes about the work, not only were the Hebrews in many ways the first meaningful democracy of the times, and proponents of what was then pretty rare monotheism, but they espoused concepts of social justice and responsibility for one’s fellow man that were, let us say, rather uncommon for the period but that have laid a foundation for many things we accept in principle today.
I agree with you that were I to attempt to discern the nature of God, I would say God is relational. If, as Rabbi Harold Kushner said, “humans are the language of God,” then it would be reasonable to surmise that God is at least the best of what we humans are about, and relationships and especially friendships are at (or near) the top of the list.
Even if we were to decide to have our discussion on the assumption of “The Bible” as the ultimate authority, we would then have to first decide on that Bible. I don’t necessarily mean the common choice between King James, New International, and Revised Standard versions, but on agreement of the decision points (and decisions made) as to what works constitute that Bible. And then we would have to agree on which primary sources hold sufficient researcher rigor to merit inclusion in those works. And then we would have to agree on which translations deserved (and deserve) merit, a daunting task considering not just translations from Hebrew, Aramaic, ancient Greek, Latin, and Old English, but agreeing on which subjective decisions were the correct ones (ancient Greek and Hebrew can have multiple meanings for the same word, a nightmare for translators even where sufficient context is available, which often isn’t the case). Deeply learned theologians become veritable Tasmanian devils going round and round on these, and their disagreements are the stuff of endless (and occasionally interesting) debate. But even if we could somehow come to some a priori assumptive agreement on all this, we would then have to address directly “the Bible as ultimate authority” facet, which would then bring up the old Protestant/Catholic schism where one declares a book as the sole authority, and the other says authority can’t be solely from a book since an institution (and the people in that institution) decided what is included in that Bible. And these determinations are separate from an assessment of the many “gold nuggets” that exist in the many versions, and why even skeptics often agree that for those things, nearly any of those versions rank as great books.
Although entirely unrelated to the specific subject, physicist Richard Feynman has an interview discussion where he describes the general problem, an interview which has now become semi-viral on YouTube.
As for nature and natural desires, I am not completely sure of what you mean, but perhaps they can be included by my comments below. Similarly, since I neither necessarily accept nor necessarily reject (neither in part nor in toto) the other parameters you have listed, no exclusion may be necessary there either. Great and learned people have held deep religious views, and great and learned people have held non-religious (and occasionally even anti-religious) views, and furthermore, the definition of religious here is somewhat separate from the definition of spiritual.
So does that leave us theological free-for-all? I think so, but don’t know for sure, as I do not know your definition there as well, lol. Regardless however, I hope the discussion does not take on the character of “poison”! :) But we can jump parsecs to another subject if you like. There are so many!
Although we will walk our own path, as you allude to we could do a lot worse than following Emerson/Carlyle or Lewis/”The American Woman.”
One can (as others HAVE) get into all sorts of discussion, speculation, and disagreement about the “true” nature of the Christian Old Testament: Examples being 1) it’s just an ethnocentric, culturally focused, and narrow view from what would otherwise be a rather tangential Middle Eastern people who got notoriety because they eventually wrote their oral history down and then guarded it with zealous and slightly xenophobic fervor; to, 2) that the Hebrews’ deity figure was a powerful alien who has since moved on, to, 3) their deity was an actual deity-like figure, but was not “God,” as evidenced by the many emotional and seemingly human drawbacks possessed by said deity, to 4) their deity WAS God, but in avatar or reduced consciousness form (similar to, although not identical, to William James’ concept).
Leaving aside those (and other) discussions, I think it worth mentioning that, whatever one believes about the work, not only were the Hebrews in many ways the first meaningful democracy of the times, and proponents of what was then pretty rare monotheism, but they espoused concepts of social justice and responsibility for one’s fellow man that were, let us say, rather uncommon for the period but that have laid a foundation for many things we accept in principle today.
I agree with you that were I to attempt to discern the nature of God, I would say God is relational. If, as Rabbi Harold Kushner said, “humans are the language of God,” then it would be reasonable to surmise that God is at least the best of what we humans are about, and relationships and especially friendships are at (or near) the top of the list.
Even if we were to decide to have our discussion on the assumption of “The Bible” as the ultimate authority, we would then have to first decide on that Bible. I don’t necessarily mean the common choice between King James, New International, and Revised Standard versions, but on agreement of the decision points (and decisions made) as to what works constitute that Bible. And then we would have to agree on which primary sources hold sufficient researcher rigor to merit inclusion in those works. And then we would have to agree on which translations deserved (and deserve) merit, a daunting task considering not just translations from Hebrew, Aramaic, ancient Greek, Latin, and Old English, but agreeing on which subjective decisions were the correct ones (ancient Greek and Hebrew can have multiple meanings for the same word, a nightmare for translators even where sufficient context is available, which often isn’t the case). Deeply learned theologians become veritable Tasmanian devils going round and round on these, and their disagreements are the stuff of endless (and occasionally interesting) debate. But even if we could somehow come to some a priori assumptive agreement on all this, we would then have to address directly “the Bible as ultimate authority” facet, which would then bring up the old Protestant/Catholic schism where one declares a book as the sole authority, and the other says authority can’t be solely from a book since an institution (and the people in that institution) decided what is included in that Bible. And these determinations are separate from an assessment of the many “gold nuggets” that exist in the many versions, and why even skeptics often agree that for those things, nearly any of those versions rank as great books.
Although entirely unrelated to the specific subject, physicist Richard Feynman has an interview discussion where he describes the general problem, an interview which has now become semi-viral on YouTube.
As for nature and natural desires, I am not completely sure of what you mean, but perhaps they can be included by my comments below. Similarly, since I neither necessarily accept nor necessarily reject (neither in part nor in toto) the other parameters you have listed, no exclusion may be necessary there either. Great and learned people have held deep religious views, and great and learned people have held non-religious (and occasionally even anti-religious) views, and furthermore, the definition of religious here is somewhat separate from the definition of spiritual.
So does that leave us theological free-for-all? I think so, but don’t know for sure, as I do not know your definition there as well, lol. Regardless however, I hope the discussion does not take on the character of “poison”! :) But we can jump parsecs to another subject if you like. There are so many!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Gathering It Up
Professor J,
Ah, the Jeremy Taylor quote is a fine one. What a wonderful definition! I hope you'll indulge me a few more quotes from our "friend" Lewis on the subject:
Friendship...luminous, tranquil, rational, world of relationships freely chosen...
In comparing friendship to companionship between two people doing something together he says " Friends will still be doing something together, but something more inward, less widely shared, less easily defined."
He also quotes Emerson as saying "Do you love me?' means 'Do you see the same truth?' -- Or at least 'Do you care about the same truth?' The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer." Emerson must have been thinking of his friend Carlyle when he made that statement. They had fervent disagreements over a great many things, and religion topped the list.
I am currently reading The Correspondence of Emerson and Carlyle. A complete collection of their letters written over nearly 40 years of friendship, during which I think they only met 3 times. I will tell you that we look like masters of brevity next to them! Still one must take into account the frequency and speed afforded us by technology. How anxiously they must have waited for the post (of their day :))! They were such interesting men and the relationship mostly carried out in letters; I may not be able to keep from quoting them from time to time. All of this has the idea of friendship swirling around in my thoughts, as if you couldn't tell.
Btw, Lewis corresponded with a woman for 13 years and they never met. His letters to her are published in Letters To An American Lady. Sadly, we do not have hers as she wished to remain anonymous.
So between our discussion of spiritual matters and friendship I'm reminded of the story of God and Moses told in Exodus where we find that "the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." In Genesis we're told that He walked with Adam in the cool of the day. John quoted Jesus as saying that there is "no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends." These things tell us something key about God. Whatever else He may be, it seems He is relational. It also appears that there is a certain "friend" element to it, in that it wouldn't be anything the Creator of the Universe would NEED but rather something WANTED as in the definitions and quotes we've used in this post and others.
Now, you have asked some classic "religious" questions. But we have to decide the criteria for answering them. If we are using the Bible as the ultimate authority we can have one sort of discussion. If you are rejecting that concept then we can still turn these ideas over because we have all of nature and man's natural desires which seem to give certain clues. If you are working from a sort of Piggly Wiggly concept of the Bible where you accept God's love, the wisdom of Christ's parables and the common sense of Proverbs yet reject the idea of hell, sin, and an entire unseen supernatural world, that would be yet another type of discussion. Or do you prefer some theological free-for- all? Choose your poison, Doctor. ;)
I have strongly held beliefs that are a result of many things, not the least of which are my personal experiences. So while to me some things appear clear and definite, everything (as always) is up for discussion and I will try to avoid the word "know"...even if think I do. ;)
Ah, the Jeremy Taylor quote is a fine one. What a wonderful definition! I hope you'll indulge me a few more quotes from our "friend" Lewis on the subject:
Friendship...luminous, tranquil, rational, world of relationships freely chosen...
In comparing friendship to companionship between two people doing something together he says " Friends will still be doing something together, but something more inward, less widely shared, less easily defined."
He also quotes Emerson as saying "Do you love me?' means 'Do you see the same truth?' -- Or at least 'Do you care about the same truth?' The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer." Emerson must have been thinking of his friend Carlyle when he made that statement. They had fervent disagreements over a great many things, and religion topped the list.
I am currently reading The Correspondence of Emerson and Carlyle. A complete collection of their letters written over nearly 40 years of friendship, during which I think they only met 3 times. I will tell you that we look like masters of brevity next to them! Still one must take into account the frequency and speed afforded us by technology. How anxiously they must have waited for the post (of their day :))! They were such interesting men and the relationship mostly carried out in letters; I may not be able to keep from quoting them from time to time. All of this has the idea of friendship swirling around in my thoughts, as if you couldn't tell.
Btw, Lewis corresponded with a woman for 13 years and they never met. His letters to her are published in Letters To An American Lady. Sadly, we do not have hers as she wished to remain anonymous.
So between our discussion of spiritual matters and friendship I'm reminded of the story of God and Moses told in Exodus where we find that "the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." In Genesis we're told that He walked with Adam in the cool of the day. John quoted Jesus as saying that there is "no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends." These things tell us something key about God. Whatever else He may be, it seems He is relational. It also appears that there is a certain "friend" element to it, in that it wouldn't be anything the Creator of the Universe would NEED but rather something WANTED as in the definitions and quotes we've used in this post and others.
Now, you have asked some classic "religious" questions. But we have to decide the criteria for answering them. If we are using the Bible as the ultimate authority we can have one sort of discussion. If you are rejecting that concept then we can still turn these ideas over because we have all of nature and man's natural desires which seem to give certain clues. If you are working from a sort of Piggly Wiggly concept of the Bible where you accept God's love, the wisdom of Christ's parables and the common sense of Proverbs yet reject the idea of hell, sin, and an entire unseen supernatural world, that would be yet another type of discussion. Or do you prefer some theological free-for- all? Choose your poison, Doctor. ;)
I have strongly held beliefs that are a result of many things, not the least of which are my personal experiences. So while to me some things appear clear and definite, everything (as always) is up for discussion and I will try to avoid the word "know"...even if think I do. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
