TSP upload

TSP Ad

pictures for ad

Pics for Sale 3

Pics for Sale 2

Pics for Sale Items

What has art to do with living?

Can you imagine a world populated by human beings without art? There is somehow an inextricable link between what it means to live as a human being and the existence of art, the capacity to create it and respond to it. But how does art give our lives the meaning that it does? Or rather why? Does it share any common properties with other items that make human life meaningful, i.e. medicine, scientific discovery, morality? And then how is it distinctive from these other avenues of meaning? It is peculiar and ambiguous as to it's teleological character. Where scientific discoveries tend to lean towards the purpose of progress, medicine towards better healthcare, morality towards better governance, to what purpose does art lean if it does at all. Is the artwork itself the purpose and the end to which it was created? And if so, where do we derive meaning from it? Let's suppose it is suggested that a painting is created for a merely aesthetic purpose -- pleasing horizontal lines and circles or something to that effect. Of course this is hypothetical since a surface aesthetic purpose may cover for a true purpose of profit (galleries, pornography, etc), persuasion to vote a particular way (propaganda, etc). But let's for now suggest that a truly aesthetic purpose is true. Is the work necessarily art? Let's take a portait for example. Is a portrait always created for an aesthetic purpose? Probably not. It is meant to resemble the subject to which it is portraying, whether that subject is aesthetically pleasing to look at or not. This does not disqualify the portrait from being considered a work of art though. So a truly aesthetic purpose is too specific rather than encompassing. Thinking this way it is pertinent to ask whether or not art can be grouped is such a large category or if it needs to be separated into various categories (literary arts, visual arts, film, etc). Can we really classify all of these as art using categorical principles. Chances are slim, though it has been tried. Principles, however, would need to encompass the actual artists' purposes and context, and the actual artworks' context, which is of course impossible with artworks temporally separated, sociohistorically, culturally separated from their times. An undergirding categorical principle would need to take all of this into account for each artwork. A daunting, and perhaps useless task. Another problem with applying principles to all artworks is that once a principle is proposed that encompasses all artwork, that principle is usually too broad encompassing more than what is allocated as art. For instance, I draw some squigly lines on paper, and call it art. Chances are, most people will disagree with me. But according to a categorical principle that undergirds art I am correct. See the problem. This is not to suggest a relativism with regards to art since it is obvious that some things are considered art by a wide majority and other things not. What is considered art must be taken into account even if it is being labeled art based upon inadequate principles such as only aesthetic ones. The ambiguity as to who decides what art is and how they decide is one of the underlying problems I'm noting here. For instance, a certain gallery was having an exhibition, and an artist decided to go to the local hardware shop, buy a urinal and enter it into the exhibition as is. The first year the judges (authorities) deemed the urinal inadequate art, but then later recanted entering it into the gallery. A year later is was taken out. So you see there is a certain disagreement on what makes art art even to those we recognize as having the authority to make such decisions. The only way I can characterize art based upon these examples is that it is 1) something that communicates meaning in communion b/w artist and artwork with the interpreter -- his or her experiences and context and 2) something that stands the test of time remaining an artwork regardless: it is better understood and perhaps appreciated given its context and history, but one needs not know these things to appreciate it. To know the purpose of the artist, the context, etc perhaps allows for a more full appreciation of the artwork, but not a necessary appreciation. The artwork should be able to stand on its own two legs apart from these communicating them within the work itself. The latter statement 2) would disqualify the urinal, but give the Harry Potter stories a chance to prove themselves to the world. Anyway, back to purpose. What purpose does art serve then or is purpose-free art a distinction that separates art from other meaningful endeavors? Well, I think art can be both. Let me explain. What about scores composed for film, such as the Lord of the Rings score by Howard Shore. The composer is given video clips and audio dialogue to work with limiting the scope of a score for the purpose of amplifying mood and giving a quality to the film that would otherwise be absent. This greatly limits the artist and the artwork for the purpose of contributing to the overall work of art -- the film. Does this nullify score composers as true artists having restrictions placed upon them, or having a purpose for composing when I've suggested already that some purposes for artistic endeavors kill the artistic component? I don't think so. I would suggest that these limitations actually enhance the overall artwork. This is not propaganda or pornography or something to that affect. Finally I think that art, because of its ambiguity and varying forms is oftentimes linked and described in terms of morality, aesthetics, values, etc. We lend art -- its creation and interpretation -- a transcendent quality that encapsulates human nature pointing to possibilities beyond, or rather pointing to situations presently. For instance, we will say that a novel is great because it encapsulates justice, reveals what evil really is, or maybe it just makes us happy (with a sappy romantic ending with a kiss, or Benji comes charging home). These are all various ways in which works of art are described and reviewed by critics. But the connection between art and morality, or art and aesthetics is less realistically made since some artworks can be interpreted in such terms and others cannot. Abstract art comes to mind with regards to morality. Is an abstract painting always linked with morality? Is a painting portraying French aristocrats making their way to the Guillotine aesthetically pleasing? Not always (if ever). This does not discount its status as art since many will consider it art, but it does discount an aesthetic principle in such a case. Well, I've said enough for now...back to Greek exegesis.

Do I get credit?

It has been brought to my attention in a few essays recently read and in a few conversations with people that there are many of my fellow artists upset that they as artist have been taken out of the equation with regards to the interpretation of their works of art. People have decided to appreciate and interpret art devoid of what the artist intended the art to communicate. Is this wrong? In any normal conversation it is pretty important when, for example, I tell someone, "The movie was great because of yada yada..." My intention in communicating my feelings perhaps are important to interpreting this statement. But then we get into the question of whether or not art is the same kind of communication as verbal communication. And most would perhaps say nay. There are three things to take into consideration -- the artist, the artwork, and the interpreter. In this arrangement the artwork tends to upset direct communication between artist and interpreter. This kind of communication is sometimes not always apparent within the artwork itself. Does this make the piece a "bad" work of art if the intentions of the artist are not somewhat apparent in the piece so that onlookers have a grasp as to what the intentions are? Or is the work of art valuable despite whether or not we as the audience can infer or grasp the intentions of the artist. I would suggest that when possible, knowledge of context and perhaps authorial intent is beneficient to more deeply interpreting a work of art rather than merely walking up to it without the knowledge. But this is in no way a denial of the power of a work of art without knowing anything about the author or context. "Art" most characteristically is art precisely because it is designated as such. If it somehow were to lose it's artistic title, then was it ever art to begin with or merely a fad? From the previous statement perhaps "art" is something timeless which remains art because it continues to give meaning to human beings across cultures and time. Without fitting this criteria is it art? So an original artwork is selling for $6 million down the street (an original Picasso cubist painting let's say). Can you say this is art because it still gives meaning to people, or is it merely a historical artifact with worth, given that Picasso will not be painting anymore (at least I don't think so). Do people really care about Picasso's intent? And then there is another question that arises. Perhaps an artist decides to paint a painting bright blue -- a study of color. Is one going to wonder of the artist's intent or even understand how to begin an interpretation of the work? Let's compare this to one of Gaugin's scenes. We tend to need a little more help interpreting art with representations of people-like things and scenery (context, intent, etc). On the other hand, is the significance of authorial intent merely a product of our culture? What about those works of art in which we know nothing about the artist? Do they lose credibility as art? I don't personally think so. Perhaps a richer and more broad range of interpretive lenses are missing, but the credibility is in tact if the art is in fact art. Why is the artist unappreciated then in most cases? Precisely because true art takes on a life of its own when the artist let's it loose. This is not to deny that the authorial intent is embedded within the work itself in just such a way that perhaps one is able to tap it. Since true art has it's value in the meaning it gives to the lives of human beings, it is the human elements that are remembered and interpreted: those elements that point to possibilities not yet realized in the present. But when I say true art this is in contrast with commercial art, which I would suggest occupies many galleries, museums, homes, etc...even some of the paintings of "masters artists." Forgive the cynicism , but the worth of original artworks nowadays is pushing the limits of an elitism that is just ridiculous. These pieces of sh** are being sold for millions of dollars while some of the true artists I know are working 9 to 5 jobs with the real talent to create masterpieces (David don't give up hope).

Random Thought on Meaning with little to no coherence

I don't know what love is...I have been married for a couple years, I have a one-year-old son, a "loving" family, caring friends, and many who enjoy talking about and expressing their ideas of what love is and how much it means in their life. For those of you who do this I commend you on discussing an issue that gives meaning to so many people's lives, and at the same time confusing the hell out of people (to be frank). For my Christian friends, I know this would be a prime opportunity to point to Scriptural formulations and examples of God's love for humanity; but pointing to it is one thing, while "knowing" it another. The mystery that encapsulates the holistic response to the term "love" is both where I find comfort and where that comfort is ripped away. Why trust something paradoxical to begin with? Why risk losing oneself in love? It is this mystery that taps into the deep caverns of human pain and suffering, but also the mountains of beautiful, sensuous human pleasure -- It is extremely human, sacred, and unpredictable. Boxing in our love we mold it into something like love, but without love's true paradoxical nature (using societal regulations, values, etc). If love only brings comfort though, is it really love? Unless a society were built on pure love, how could it bring anything but both extremes (comfort and pain)? We must box in our love to keep it from breaking completely into the world suddenly and upsetting human order. We marry into little communities of love -- pleasurable and painful -- and sort them out on a miniature scale (but with extreme emotions, thoughts, actions and reactions). And where we seek to control love feeling that we have a grasp on what it is, we can fail and a marriage can become merely a societal norm devoid of love. Embracing the mystery, embracing the fact that we do not know what love is, that we never have, and never fully will is a good realization to have in a marriage where love is the primary claim and basis for such a commitment. As love's ambiguity and mystery unfolds, a person's grasp on love can fade as well as their marriage. Why would you love someone? What does it mean to love someone? The question is a lifetime in the making, and the someone is a part of the mystery of love. I don't think it's just because we make each other laugh, just because we talk, just because we have similarities. To love a person is to love them for who they are becoming. The someone is always an end in themselves, a person who loves deeply -- who hurts, who bleeds darkening the sky, but whose happiness ushers in a swift sunrise. Why do we love and choose to marry a single person? What leads us to make that judgment about someone? Do they fit categories that we expect them to fit into? Not always? But neither does love fit into our categories. Could it be that we see the face of love in these people? What does it look like? Why are we drawn to it? Why risk it? Because we're human?...

It's been quite a while

In the past few days, while busily parading about in the image of good seminarian, I need to vent a bit. If "good" entails no cursing, no vices, no false motives, no dishonesty, and conformity of beliefs in dialogue then I've finally tipped in favor of "bad." But just enough to hang onto the fence like a child pushing (or hanging on to) his limits. Okay, perhaps I've crossed the line a bit into full blown "bad" but I dart back to the fence. Interesting how we straddle the fence of "good" and "bad." (People work with me; I know there is no real fence and I'm in danger of categorically misconstruing the idea of one fence, but it just so happens to be the way I'm thinking right now; deal). Anyway, I prance around seminary putting on smart Tim, carrying my morning, afternoon, evening coffee with me, chit-chatting with acquaintances, taking notes, making comments, studying...But when I get home seminary Tim wears off and I slip into real Tim. But in case people from the seminary are reading, I'll spare the details, but for those of you who know me...try not to reveal anything; we wouldn't want to scare people, pervert them, or lead them to our straying from reality into something else. YOU Guys know what I mean!! David, don't say anything! Anyway, seminary has been an interesting experience. Towards conclusion my motivation has receded and I find myself studying fewer and fewer each week. Hebrew, unfortunately has taken the brunt of my lack of work. This is not to belittle the seminary experience or those going into pastoral ministry; in fact I commend pastoral candidates and tip my hat to them for their sense of calling. But it is hard to reconcile my previous and current grip on reality and the seminary teaching. Never once have we satiated basic questions, concerns before stepping into the more advanced questions -- in my opinion, poor handling. Must go, class.

The Digital Image

Pixels -- plain and plaid are pooled, portioned and partitioned -- flickering flagrantly, wildly flashing to fool the fools that find faith in fallacious fane. Attracted assiduously, adoringly the artificial artist amuses the music of muses -- tone-deaf tyrants titillating, two-faced scoundrels intoxicated to the time and tune of trickery and treachery. Bliss and belligerence both beguile and bewitch with bestial yet furtive faces. Freedom fails, fiction flatters, flexibility falters forsaking any finesse when what matters most -- when the wight waters of wit and willful wonder wake and wish upon winds of weird -- mimics mannerly meaning -- a meandering match -- and commercial commodity. Can contemporary connoiseurs consciously contain and control their computative creativity, critically counted, conditioned, and capitalized? Do originality and ontology order according to obviously objective ornamenting which ordain origins as obituary by outlawing potentiality? Pregant and potent the replete possibilities in the pithy play of pure professionals present a promise-full prayer to put faith in the assured return of the rambunctious artist.

Power and Reality

I can still remember the days when one of my favorite childhood cartoons came on television: He-Man. I can still remember him holding up his sword and thundering, "By the power of Grayskull, I have the power!" What a powerful statement I used to think to myself. In fact, the statement still gives me goosebumps to this day. What it must be like to have that kind of power at my disposal...I can think of a hundred things I'd do with it (none of which particularly beneficent, though not altogether selfish). To be powerful, for me then involves having some kind of advantage that others do not have satisfying my need for speciality in and amongst my peers (especially my family and friends to whom I find an embarassing need to show-off, which does become rather embarassing at times). I want to be powerful enough to care for my son, love my wife and make my life easier. And so then another aspect of the power I want is that it makes life easier. But of course I would also want to impress the world with my power if possible...the more time in the spotlight the more inflated my ego becomes, the less stress I have, and the more I seem like that interesting person I always find on television.

In the last paragraph the word "I" and "me" appeared 25 times in a description of the kind of power I have been attracted to in my life. Thus, the power I want is an individual power that aids me and gives me an advantage in life, more 'freedom' to choose possibilities not available to others.

Again, I'm reminded of yet another superhero -- Superman. Now Superman has the possibility of flying, zapping things with his eye lasers, seeing through most objects, picking up objects too heavy for human beings, and going back in time -- all of which are possibilities not available to us naturally (as of yet at least). [And no I'm not going into a debate on what is and what is not natural...that's a few volumes of books]. Superman has the autonomous decision to use this advantage for his advantage or for others advantage. Of course, Superman is selfless, choosing the corporate good at all turns unless prevented by Kryptonite or other manipulation of his advantage.

Interesting, that when I think of power my mind surfs the array of superheroes first. Why? Is it because I was "glued to the tube" as a child and loved cartoons so much and so often that the memory stuck in the back of my mind so that it gets recalled at will? Perhaps. Is it because I imagined myself as a ninja turtle, as luke skywalker, as ender, as Aragorn, Wolverine, He-Man, a transformer, Captain Picard, Spock while I was growing up? Perhaps. Is it because all of my friends were interested in many of the same things, that I gravitated to these particular manifestations of power? Was it the yearning for acceptance that motivated me? Perhaps. Or more than likely all of these played a part in my perception of who and what is powerful and what manifestations power can take that I perceive to contain that power. It is then significant to note the social nature of human beings, and thus the social construction of what is powerful and what holds power.

Most nations hold America to be a nation more powerful than others, right? Not always. It depends upon your particular view of power. Returning to my first comments, the individualistic power that I grew up with informs me that indeed America is extremely powerful: we have an abundance of resources, wealth, autonomous freedom to choose within the parameters of the law, education, democracy, and the ability to destroy the world a thousand times over (or something like that). This is the power that gives Americans their perceived advantage over those in the rest of the world. We ignore the rest of the world because we know we are better than they are. Or we give the rest of the world charity while we stuff our faces, shop, buy, buy, buy, and indulge not in our ignorance concerning the condition of others but in our ignoring of them while masking with ignorance. Concerning the American mindset, I am not going to criticize it much more than I already have, but I would like to point out that it is our perceived advantage, our perceived power, that contributes to global strife because we tend to universalize our perception for the rest of the globe. And yes, the globe has conformed somewhat to the predictable advantage of the West, but because it is predictable, because it is physical and tangible -- something available to the senses that answers many questions. What is more powerful to us than the advantages we can see, touch and experience? That which we do not experience -- what I will refer to as the sacred?

What is powerful about a man who dies by having his hands and feet nailed to a tree where he slowly suffocates? What is powerful in this image? Is this merely a cathartic, experiential sort of empathy we have for a person who has committed no crime to die such a horrible death? I can still here my high school english grammar professor telling the class about the Bible as a good work of literature, utilizing rhetorical devices and grammar constructions uniquely to evoke certain emotions and create an ambiguity that lends it its power to transcend the ages (thus far). The sacred was not something embodied within the text, but mere rhetorical ambiguity to excite the weak-minded. Of course I believed him...his reasoning was sound, but more importantly he had answers, he had an empirical advantage over the religion to which I associated myself, which merely offered idealistic ambiguity (I thought at the time). How could Christianity, seemingly large and powerful, claim a power that revolves around a man that died on a tree and claim a power in faith that cannot be empirically verified? Faith could be merely explained away in terms of a psychological need, while the power in the crucifixion could be explained away as an event that embodies certain possibilities not available to human beings to which human beings find hope that one day they might be more than who and what they are. Is it the need of human beings to redefine power so that we are not bound by our temporal and humanly limitations? Is this why religion exists? So that human beings have the power, the advantage to cope with their existence in the empirical?

There are two powers at work here: the power of the sacred (mysterious advantage), and the power of empirical advantage. It is important to note this because both exist in our society.

Let's look at a metaphor: power as art. But what do I mean? Well, art can be powerful in a number of ways. It could be that art has its power in and among the cliques that auction it off and buy it. Or it could be that art has its power merely in an aesthetic sense. Or it could be that it has power psychologically. Or it could be that it has its power in human nature? Art can derive its power as communication? My point is that the power inherent in a work of art depends upon where a person or community stands at any given point in time. There are cultural factors that play a part, religious factors, etc. Isn't it interesting that we create art, which then takes on a life of its own, and then we exploit it to fulfill our own advantage. Art is then very powerful in an infinite number of ways. This is why it must be controlled. Granted this is a bit simplistic and not a complete analysis, but brevity is my goal: the power in art is balanced by sacred advantage and empirical advantage; in other words, power exists in art, but that power is sacred. But what is sacred cannot be so without control, otherwise society would fall apart. When what is sacred breaks loose, violence ensues (i've said this before). I would elaborate on these examples, but here are a few that I find relevant: The French Revolution, Protestant Reformation, Evolution...

What is sacred is institutionalized by religions to control it...but institutions, utilizing an empirical advantage cannot always contain the sacred advantage because the sacred is not always predictable. The empirical advantage only stands the test of time if something is predictable. But the sacred advantage points to something inexplicable, something not static that violates the empirical advantage we cling to in the West as what is powerful. Art is exploited as an empirical advantage, bought and sold, but again when the sacred advantage breaks free, it will violently re-emerge and redefine itself as art -- and this is true art.

Returning to the power of the cross that the Apostle Paul vehemently clings to in the letters attributed to him within the New Testament of the Bible, this is the power of the sacred with a temporal face, a promise, a hope, and an example for all of humanity. Understanding that human beings do not have access to understanding such power he relies on the grace of God to reveal such things to he and his brothers and sisters in Christ. As theologians put it, he sees through the lens of the cross revealing true power for what it is. And for Paul true power is God, the Sacred. But because human beings are limited beings in time, we can recognize true power when we see the world through the lens of Jesus' crucifixion, and as such focus the power of the sacred on its true origin. Christianity is not then something that one chooses, but is a reflection of how one perceives the power of the sacred given by God. But this perception of the sacred advantage is not unique to Christianity.

This power is institutionalized and focused in a number of ways by many people -- the world's religions, et al. Who has pegged the perception of the sacred that is more right? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Atheists, Scientists? Though I hate to brave a discussion of faith, this would be a logical place to do so. To start, the Muslim faith involves a numerical system wherein for every good act, certain numbers of eternal years of salvation are added into one's overall salvation; and for every bad act, a subtraction of years of eternal life? Christianity suggests that what we do has no effect on our eternal life, but rather God graciously gives all the possibility of eternal life (and no I will not go into a theological debate on election here -- I find it pointless and a Scriptural stalemate -- the point is that only God is responsible for human salvation). Comparing these two religions is walking a fine line here and I do not do justice to either...but what this illustrates is a difference in how the sacred is identified. In one, we have an empircal advantage still that seeps into eternal life, and in the other, we have an advantage that is not in our hands. Is the power of the sacred ours to control outside the temporal or not? Granted, this is of course conjecture, but it could be that we try to attribute the dominating perception of empirical power as more powerful into what we consider the power of the sacred. But if the power of the sacred is more powerful than the empirical advantage, then I have an ontological problem in attributing my socially conditioned empirical advantage to that of the sacred.

Returning to art, if buying and selling it as a commodity and the aesthetic value are together the socially constructed empirical advantage and human beings try to transpose this power onto the sacred power of the art, the empirical power falters every time because of its limited nature being imposed on something pointing to what is transcendent. But art, whether created as such or not, is not static or necessarily specific to a particular time period...

Here is where real power dynamics come into play and they have to do with a deeply-rooted metaphysical question: what is real? Reality over the years has been vastly interpreted in a broad range of ways...from Plato's forms, Aristotle's observation (potentiality and actuality), Bacon's induction, etc, etc...however the work does not stop with them (yes, I know I'm holding an allegiance with existentialism) but is a process of defining in our own lives. What is real to me, a social being (another assumption, I know), in a community with others? Or to phrase it another way, how do others reflect what is real? Because this question is processual and ongoing in our lives with no clear-cut definition given our temporal existence, then power struggles will always be a part of temporal humanity. In other words, while the good Muslim in Iraq holds that what is in the Quran is real, then any other possibility of what is real is automatically excluded from the discussion. Or if a Christian holds that what Scripture says is real, then this also excludes other possible definitions of reality. Absolutist, monopoly claims on reality are bound to cause tension and conflict where belief and faith are concerned because conviction does not change I have come to realize among many people I admire and respect.

Faith is something inherent within human nature that is generally characterized in the West in one of two ways: 1) true human nature is purely deterministic and physical and thus faith can be explained genetically as an evolutionary survival mechanism, or 2) true human nature is not yet realized and mystery is still in the equation leaving much conjecture. Scientist' allegiance to 1) pose the possibility of ending much tension and conflict with the correction of the misunderstanding that has long plagued humanity by means of de-mystifying the universe and the human being.

As such, I might add, 1) is attractive to me, in my experience and interactions with others, but 2) is more real. This could be because mystery plays a large role in my social life, or it could be that in my interactions and yearning for knowledge I have been unsatisfied with how much I can learn and retain from a broad spectrum of categories. Or it could be that my religious upbringing plays a large role in my perception of reality. Who knows? But what I do know is that historically, when scientists, Christians, whoever thinks they have everything almost figured out, more questions arise, and more questions arise until the questions far surpass the answers. And even when answers "solve" questions, the questions still remains with addendum questions. And when paradigms come crashing down at the introduction of a "better" one, the questions are continually being re-asked in different ways for purposes defined by the culture asking the questions. Thus the questions and the answers are both culturally conditioned and culturally limited.

What is real and what is powerful? What lens do you look through to answer this question? Paul used the criterion of the cross, the scientist the criterion of the scientific method, and the list goes on.

Rambling on and on is really a process of thinking through and re-assessing the lens through which I see because it makes no sense. I find power in what is seemingly unpowerful as a Christian and as such find myself always in tension (a concept I blogged on before). There are no assurances other than a deeply rooted faith I have for seeing the world the way I do and the community of friends and family that continually inform, encourage, challenge, and love me.

Though I did not discuss love here in this discussion, perhaps it deserves mention because for me it exhibits what is sacred and powerful. And that power is not a dominating one, not an advantageous one. Power is not advantage in the sense that we define it, but power is advantage in serving others through love. It is perhaps this deeply rooted faith in love that undergirds this discussion. It is this criterion that institutionalizes the sacred for Christians rather than the political organizations of the church that rest on this foundation. Traditionally, since Martin Luther the emphasis for Protestant Christians has been on grace and faith. But there is always a danger in holding to faith alone when the ambiguity of the term has historically led to very individual interpretations of it. Faith, hope and love are inextricably linked or a Christian has merely succumbed to empirical advantage over sacred advantage thus claiming grace alone as a means of human salvation but denying it at the same time.

To conclude this discussion of power, it is important to note that this discussion by no means limits anyone's perception of power. It is merely a little chunk to contribute to a conversation that is normatively significant.

An Ethical Criterion

That which contributes positively to positive relationships is right, while anything that detracts from positive relationships is wrong. Simple, no? Encompassing? Time will tell.

Formlessness and Time

Further exploring a previous short inquiry, some-thing or perhaps a non-thing, most people would admit to knowing what 'it' is yet fail to adequately explain 'it.' Here is perhaps more to ponder and less to understand.

What stuff existed before the Big Bang, if in fact the Big Bang describes the prime event that kick-started those changes that we now observe and measure 'in time.' What existed, what matter existed 'before' this particular event...how 'old' is it, does it have an 'origin' or has it always 'been?' What sort of make-up in this matter conditions it to evolve if in fact it does evolve? So far all of these questions involve a perception of time as being in existence. Though if time is not an actual 'thing' in and of itself, it is definately a category ascribed to the observance of the changeability of matter, or changeability of forms. Human beings have been witnessing the repetition of day and night since it has had the ability to perceive repetition. Other living organisms recognize such as well IThis is not to suggest that the universe has a particular function, only that properties go through a series of changes exhibiting energy, and other visible, measurable phenomena that science seeks to categorize and one day control. In other words, how our universe works...putting a face to mystery and miracle.

We categorize time, or perhaps began to categorize time based on the revolution of the sun (viewing the repetition of the 24-hour day [+ or -]). And from this very primordial method, we perhaps began to break down even that interval of change into smaller parts and expand it into larger parts. Reduction has its forecasting capability, yet trying to understand using the method of fragmentation fails to adequately explain the relational function of a conglomerate form with another conglomerate form when that relationship defies predictability...

...Time could be an evolved construct of the human brain to further survival of our species on earth as is evident throughout human history...I say this to make unqualified sociological claims (unprofessionally of course). Time is pertinent to epistemology and ontology and metaphysics and science. Without an understanding of it, humanity fades back into oblivion -- though it does not substantially exist...It also functions after being conceived -- a ticking time bomb which tickles one to violence, and kills one to beneficence...It is a local construct if it is a construct at all -- human beings perceive time as such due to the local change in forms, or perhaps the local perception of the changeability of forms -- though if other life exists outside of this world, then perhaps our perception of time is moot or needs redaction.

Here is a note with regard to imagination and time. Many human beings perceive time as such because they have a perception of non-time within time. Sometimes I wonder where this dualistic sort of thinking comes from (spirit/body, time/non-time, etc) and then I thought to myself... When one thinks, their perception of self, of ontology, is split. Thinking is not equated with the physical life of being, and is perceived transcendent to what is physical, though perhaps not intentionally. It is because of this tension that human individuals grapple with that imaginative ideas are brought to life -- ideas within time to defy time -- whole persons rather than split persons. After reading a special edition of Time magazine on 'Time' I read an article concerning time travel and time machines which really inspired this speculation. We live as split persons struggling to be whole in a busy world with others -- what 'time' do we live in? Perhaps this is the wrong way to phrase the question. What non-time do we live in struggling to get in time? Or vice versa? (depending on the person and their perception).

Now what if there was a time when there was no time, no form, no order? Who formed matter so that it had order? Who sustains ordered matter? Order and time, in this scenario would be inextricably linked...there can be no time without changeability of forms. Just because forms or primordial stuff existed, this does not necessarily suggest that time existed, if time is dependent upon change. If one suggests that evolutionary processes dictate the order of the universe, then time exists only because of the changes involved in those processes. Can anything be apart from time? Off hand my answer would be 'no.' Though if there is "something(s)" which existed before the changeability of forms consistently and unchanging, then perhaps in time and among our perceptions of change we would not be able to analyze it, or even comprehend it since we are limited in our own changeability and think only in time, curious about non-time.

Existentially does past, present and future really exist? The past is only a memory, the future an anticipation. As soon as the future comes, in an instant it becomes the past. If one could find the point at which the three concepts converge, then that person finds eternity and rest. Even if one were to travel 'in time' (though 'travel' is not necessarily the best-fitting term) then the present would still always be the only existing time...only the human concept of time would evolve into a more complex understanding of the changeability of forms. Though human beings would still be limited by those changes, still only think in terms of form changes...

The Death of Art

Original, perhaps creative thinking has seemingly all but disappeared, where the typical westerner takes up a similar approach to learning prescribed by Benjamin Franklin: imitation. To what extent are we products of our time and our space? Ultimately, these spatiotemporal categories impose limitations on what we learn, how we learn, how we think, how we communicate ideas...but where then does true art fit, where does the artist who truly believes in the power and transcendence of art fit into postmodern schema -- the limits of contextual relativity? While pondering these questions, my observation of what society notes to be 'art' in the most general sense, has more to do with social value, more to do with the imitation of what other before have done. But have we embraced the originality and creativity that true art notably required? Or did originality and creativity ever exist, ever transcend our limitations? Observing concerts, operas, going to art galleries, looking at photography, breezing through graphic novels, staring at t-shirts...what strikes me is the imitating of elements characteristic of particular social spheres, wherein identity lies within the realm characterized by prestige, wealth, individualism...

In school curriculum, thinking for oneself has been waylaid until one can properly note what historians, philosophers, and other novelists and artists have stated before. Oringinal thinking just is not good enough any more apart from traditional thinking -- yet another constraint. But how many constraints can one have, culturally, historically, familialy, literarily, logically before a person's psyche snaps and revolution against imposed limits ensues and what is sacred breaks free from the chains of institutionalization?

Is then there an inherent need characteristic of human beings for creativity and originality to somehow teleologically explain their natural condition? And if so, when will the next Art revolution take place? In what form? How violently? And what could this mean for the varying human spheres on planet Earth? How might this affect how we think? How we teach? What to value?

Is art dead? One can make that argument...though I think there may be enough evidence that it only lies dormant.

As long as the sacred exists (perhaps until secularism eventually kills it and an eschaton of sorts ensues), then art, creativity, and originality have their existence in the mystery characteristic of our sacred constructions. [But even further, if one considers art to be teleologically normative, then as long as human beings are doing ethics, art will have a place.] Thus mystery and art have consummated their marriage under specific rules, yielding offspring of different shapes and sizes and values...all valid in our postmodern thought, though some historically shunned or even killed. But many children survive under the covenant umbrella of mystery. They imitate their adopted parents, perhaps enlightening them, perhaps merely living unnoticed. And when they are threatened by others, we defend ferociously our own children...we always seek to understand them...we impose our own limitations upon them, punishing them if not obeyed...and we love them...

...such is the perception of art, and such is the perception of the sacred...our adopted children, though more likely our own veiled dogma, fed by our misplaced love. True art then, in my opinion, is not truly created, or truly interpreted without true love placed not in the act of creating, not in the interpretation of that creation, but within the sphere of mystery on a quest to unveil art's true origin.

The coming storm

A storm is coming. The provocative scent of pine intermingling with the early August bloom is refreshing. Slinking from the north upon the shoulders of the cool wind, growing, expanding, darkening -- it comes...My senses are teased by the wind obeying a rhythm unknown to mortal dance or song.

Though fearful I am, comfort I find in the coming of the storm.

Oh, the cleansing power of nature -- adrenaline exploding into a cathartic implosion; my fingers tingle, my core is strangely warmed by a seemingly supernatural sensation at conflict with the anvil's chill. Two natural realities find an equilibrium, 'supernatural' says the self. But balance is short-lived, it is snatched away by question -- inductive conditioning, nature from linear perspective.

The storm comes....

The roar is loud, the moisture very thick now...the whole of the storm definitively unpredictable. Born from the butterfly wings of somewhere, nowhere to be forgotten. Such is characteristic of all things real...from the fantastical unicorns of the mind to the harsh world of faltering beings.

Looking up into the eyes of the darkness that engulfs me, there are vapor molecules, wind, clouds...but also space invaders hidden by their cloud-like shields, a doorway to a dimension where midieval Knights compete for the hand of a fair-maiden...I can see myself, my life -- gnosis intrigues, time ceases and God reminds me of my mortality.

The revelatory shock is as sharp as a knife, the quake as loud as stampeding rhinos. I am afraid. When the water begins to trickle upon my brow, when the sweat of my mortality is slowly washed away, I stand there helplessly humbled by the sudden surge of humility in love.

Epistemic reality for Christians in the union of telos and eschaton

The Reformed tradition within Christianity has generally started any theological inquiry based upon a christological understanding and the circumstances in the world at any given time -- Christ as the center of the Christian religion...however, more recently even this has been questioned since keeping Christ at the center has proven to support a indoctrinated static position that allows injustice to flourish within the church as well as without the church. If there is anything that the Kingdom of God is not in the temporal, it would be that it is not static. The realized and the not yet fulfilled Kin_dom attests to the mysterious tension that requires the constant and continuous attention of all persons to interpret the will of God within a given time. A brief remark on the Christian view of history following Augustine. Christian history has Christ at its center unifying both past, present, and future. In this history, eternal life is not something in the future, not future events as such, but where the past, the present and the future meet. Each moment is a glimpse of the eternal but it is then washed away in the ambiguities of history, self-integration, self-creativity, and self-transcendence (Tillich). But where the cosmic, the communal, and the personal are in unity the Kingdom of God breaks into the world.

Continuing with what I started about traditional indoctrinated Christianity, the church itself, since blindly accepting dogmatic theology from tradition without questioning the very use of dogmatics, the very language of them, the very cultural understandings of such images...in fact Christ as the center of attention, though perhaps rightly placed, has historically contributed to oppression and victimization of different peoples, races, genders. Christ as a male figure solely concentrated on does very little for women who have been oppressed by men who have wrongly utilized the Christ symbol as a means of justifying the victimization of women and the defining of what gender means. Christians have long fallen into this particular pit-fall which was never fully questioned even by more recent feminist theologians. Though I think Elizabeth Fiorenza has it correct when identifying the problem as being deeply embedded in the Reformed tradition which holds in high regard Christ as center. Fiorenza proposes to hold Mary, the mother of Jesus in high regard to counter the symbol of Jesus -- she has been interpreted in terms of the perfect servile woman throughout history, but perhaps this isn't enough. What about the fact that she was single and carrying a baby -- this cries scandal! Why is this not cited? Why is the reality that she was perhaps a sexual being who was tempted by Joseph or perhaps raped (which was not an uncommon occurrence) not mentioned? Sorry...tangent...back to the point.

Christ, as I've mentioned is thought to be the center of history uniting both past and present. He is thought to usher in the Kingdom of God which will continue to break into the world until Jesus comes again. It is the mission of the church to do the will of God with the help of the Spirit in Christ's absence and to spread the news that Christ died for humanity and will come again; to love others, to contribute to positive relationships, to be just, to be involved politically. World history is not the same thing as Christian history, since Christian history is merely a part of world history. Christians live in the world, are subject to the laws of the temporal. They are to actively take part in the world doing the will of God rather than just passively sitting on their butts claiming to believe in God. Believing in God is true only if that belief produces the fruit of labor. Works righteousness is not the road to heaven, but faith without works is no faith at all. Again, I'm straying a bit. Christians then hold to this belief that Jesus will return again to judge and to finish the redeeming work already begun at the crucifixion.

Now my point: this Christian hope in this future coming of Christ is precisely what underlies the epistemology of many Christian thinkers. It is a hope that arises from the union of the Christian understanding of telos and eschaton. The telos of the Christian is to do the will of God, while the eschaton refers to the coming again of Christ. Liberation theologians especially hold to this. Drawing on the experiences of oppression and marginalization within their own context, the concern that theology addresses is that of liberation from injustice...freedom. The Christian message is interpreted through this lens and so the hope a liberation theologian and oppressed peoples has comes from the hope of a reality where Christ liberates people from oppression. Christ died to redeem the world and so the Christians with this experience of oppression, actively participate in the goal of liberating the oppressed. One does not merely wait for Christ to come back. A good way to understand the necessity of activity in the Christian life is in the interpretation of the resurrection of the body. Many subscribe to a Platonic dualistic notion of the soul and body (not apparent in Judaism) though this message is not biblically accurate. Jesus himself rose bodily from the dead. The Apostle Paul speaks of a "new body." The point being that what we do in this life matters and perhaps to some extent carries with us into the next. Jesus himself had scars. Some theologians refer to this as essentialization -- as we live in history, when the eschaton arrives, what we take into unambiguous life is the positive while the negative is merely exposed for what it is -- nonbeing. Thus what we do in history that has an impact in history is carried with us into the Eternal Life. This may posit degrees of Eternal life that one receives though this is proceeding too much into the realm of speculation. What is certain is that eternal life at the crossroads of the past and future is to be lived out in the temoral, though the ambiguities within the temporal hinder action when all are not held in check -- for instance individualization and participation -- the tension of our individuality and our positions within communities. Both need to be balanced and will be in unity within the Eternal life. It seems common opinion that what matters is the community while the individual merely plays their part within -- the betterment of the whole. But perhaps this can best be interpreted when some remnance of the individual is retained in eternal life with the knowledge that the individual does not exist alone apart from the community.

Furthering my comments, it is important to realize that actively participating in history means making sacrifice. The more one makes a difference the more sacrifices a person has to make. But this sacrifice is not merely a self-destructive act, but a self-fulfillment as this positive character is taken with a person to unambiguous life. What does this say about the artist from a Christian perspective? An artist then when writing a score, painting a picture, writing a novel does so to contribute to human understanding, to make a mark in history. It is a self-sacrificial act, which may lead to drunkenness or drug-use, however the self-sacrificial act in itself is self-fulfilling to the true artist. It is precisely this sacrificial character that leads many times to an abrupt life, though eternally self-fulfilling. An artist's endeavor to do this then is a good model for essentialization and gives a glimpse of Eternal life within the temporal. But the ambiguities of the temporal make an artist's work never a completed work, but a work in progress, in process until the end of time. At that end, the artist can rest assured. It is the persistent activity of the artist then that Christians should look at when addressing sociopolitical matters or matters of injustice. Not paining is never an option. A true artist must paint to end injustice. A true Christian must act to end injustice.

Christology and Politics

There are those in America who support the separation of church and state; there are those who don't care too much as long as they are left alone to their own business; and then there are those who radically believe that religion and the state should not be distinguished as two separate entities (though perhaps in a rather naive sort of way). Christians fall all along this spectrum holding onto varying values inherent within the confines of the meaning illicited by the term "Christian." Some hold on to biblical inerrancy (though perhaps this too does not grasp the historical ambiguity that this phrase has drawn in the past century and a half); some perhaps value the individual family unit characteristic of the late 19th century and early 20th; some may value the example of Jesus' life as recorded in the gospel narratives. Behind the "Christian" values that a person holds, these values originate from the interplay of individual experience, the gospel narratives, and an interpreted christology that comes out of this interplay. Because the religion of the Christianity centers around the person and work of Jesus who is considered the Christ, then the Christ becomes the criterion for normative action. But how does any particular Christian view Jesus as Christ? Not in the same way for sure due to the plurality of individual experience and the interpretation of the gospel. For many the Christ could be atoning figure who makes the ultimate sacrifice fulfilling a messianic function and allowing all humanity the possibility of escaping sure death. This is perhaps well documented and argued. There may be others who interpret the Christ-figure to be merely an ethical example for all of human-kind -- more of a Buddha figure, which inherently lends Jesus' actions before his death as significant, though perhaps not his actions afterward. Depending upon a Christian's christological understanding of Jesus, their values may shift. Again, some may, within their interpretation of Scripture and in their personal experience understand violence to be a necessary maneuver in counteracting evil. And on the other hand there are others who find backing for pacifism within Scripture and in their personal experience. Is either one right or wrong? For the Christian to do christology, he or she must ask how Jesus fits the role as Christ and what that means within the biblical narrative. Within the narrative the atoning work of Jesus is surrounded by a particular environment at a specific time in history within a particular governing structure. This last comment is important for those taking the gospel seriously. Looking at Jesus' life as a whole, he was never truly politically successful while he was alive in terms of Roman governance. Jesus' ways were not the ways of Pax Romana as is evident in his confrontation with Pilate and (flawed trial). His ways were not the ways of the world. Everything Jesus did worked against him from the very beginning until eventually he met his demise. Jesus as the Christ was not a figure who had material wealth, who aligned himself with the government of the time, who befriended the prestigious. The Christ that Christians proclaim was on the road to the cross his whole life. To live according to a politics that is not the politics of the day (in this case that of the Pax Romana) is to invite violence and suffering into one's life. Does Jesus fight the world as other Jews envisioned the Messiah to do? Jesus does not go into battle, he merely goes to the cross. Whether a person's christology involves a purely ethical Jesus or salvific Jesus or Jesus as Son of God, the highly political nature of Jesus' life and ministry cannot be ignored. The Christian Right has it right in this regard! There is no separating the church and politics for Christians. Karl Barth wisely put that one should read Scripture in one hand and the Newspaper in the other. For a Christian merely to ignore the politics in their own country is, I would suggest, to misread Scripture. I am not a proponent of the Christian right recognizing its many flawed actions and naivete in politics, though I wanted to point out that it does recognize this connection. Contingent upon one's christological interpretation is one's interpretation of the church and its function. And the function of the church, as the body of Christ, is to act as the actual body of Christ, doing the will of Christ on earth. What is known of the will of the Christ is witnessed in Scripture and their to be interpreted -- upbuilding of the community, spread of the message of Christ, social justice, aid to those in need. In these interpretations I find it hard to locate the calling for violence in the Christian life. In my own exegesis, what stands out as being Christian (but not solely a Christian notion), what stands out in my christological interpretation of the biblical narrative and my own personal experience is the notion of agape -- not just in the sense of a pure love, but a pure love that exists to build up positive relationships between people and people, people and nature, people and God, God and nature...thus my criterion for normative action derived from exegesis, experience, study, etc is asking whether or not what I do contributes positively to relationships -- not a positivistic notion or utilitarian slanted standard. The Christ died for us means that the Christ died to save us from a broken relationship with God once divided by "sin" (to use another loaded term). To the non-Christian, perhaps one can gain a bit of a sociological or anthropological insight into the ambiguous and plural religion that the Christian holds to. To the Christian, perhaps doing Christology can help render normative guidelines that might be helpful in life and in the political sphere in which one lives.

Clarifying torture

Writing blog entries are great ways for me to sort out my thoughts. Though recently time has not permitted me the opportunity to write. But today, I feel I need to blog regarding the Military Commissions Act just signed by President Bush this morning.

To dig right into the heart of the matter: a law was just signed and now will be enforced that legalizes torture in the U.S. of anyone that the President or committee in government turns in? Yikes? Before I run and hide all of the politically incorrect things I own so as not to upset anyone working for the federal government, why would such a law be voted in? The answer boils down to a Utilitarian rhetorical question that I'm sure we're very familiar with: would you prefer harsh interrogation of a few or the possible deaths of many? So, as far as those who passed the bill are concerned, it is justified to lay aside a commonly held moral if that moral hinders the benefits of humankind (Americans in this case) generally? Well, which is it folks...torture as a preventative means as a reality or the chance of a terrorist attack just as large or larger than September 11, 2001? Most opposing democrates would not consider the ultimatum in this case, but merely the fact that the American federal government has indirectly legalized torture, period. Neither one of these points of view sound appealing. Both ignore the potential repercussions of the situation. On the one hand, the democrats fail to suggest better policy that would prevent further large scale terrorist attacks and in so doing fall under this question: does a clear conscience with regards to torture after a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. mean more than the lives of thousands? And on the other, conservatives fail to understand America globally. Sanctioning torture in America only suggests to the rest of the world that each nation's governing body has the right to torture when it votes it necessary. Thus, in retrospect the Utilitarian notion on the part of the conservative party is two-fold: it applies only to Americans in one sense -- Bush is concerned with preventing further attacks in America, and so torture is okay to do so -- and it applies universally -- in that torture is okay to save as many lives as possible. This is where President Bush is perhaps confused because he seems to think globally on one level and American on the other with a gap somewhere in between. However, in Bush's defense, democrats have failed to propose any kind of effective terrorist preventative policy and have only offered criticism since 9-11. "Anti-Bush" is only legitimate if one can propose better policy. In other words democrats have missed the big picture, which Bush rightly criticizes them for.

Let's ask a broader, more general question: Is violence merely a reality in nature, is it a necessary reality that can be sanctioned in certain circumstances, or is it a reality that one should always strive to avoid? In partial answer to this I would suggest that we usually do our best to keep violence at bay and under control...but do we do this using violence? After September 11, 2001 Violence was re-introduced in a new and real way to the American people who thought they had this sort of violence under control. And when one realizes that they are not in control of potential destruction they turn to new ways or old ways of controlling violence until they ritualize that method... and then that method of control paradigmatically works until other forms/waves of violence realistically become evident... [disregard everything after the question since I haven't work through this sociological pattern yet...it's merely my conjecture]

American Difficulty in Differentiating Nationalism from Theology

America has morphed ever more each day into a nation with a deeper and deeper sense of nationalism that is expunging previous views of the sacred (i.e. Puritan theology, hinduism, Islam) and exploiting these tradiional sacralized tenets to further contribute to the evolving national religion conceived for the sake of a "unifying liberty..." It think we can safely trace these roots back before the civil war, but definitely afterward. What is it about the Civil War that contributed to a syncretism of nationalism and theology? Venturing an educated guess, I propose a few different contributing factors that led to the merger: Realized violence, Abraham Lincoln, and slavery. Before the Civil War such atrocities were few and far between, far-removed from the Americas. The violence that ensued in the Civil War stretched the rules of war into an almost total war, where civilian and soldier ceased to be distinguished and God was seen as being present to the South and North -- both sides on a crusade for some reason. This brings me to the second contributing factor. Slavery was not the viable reason to go to war since very few opposed the institution of slavery to begin with, in fact noting a biblical warrant for its presence. But as the war became more and more horrific the more the people needed a reason and motivation to fight. The war was thought to be the result of sin on the part of both sides and it wouldn't stop until that sin had been relinquished and paid for...slavery was among these. And this brings me to my third contributing factor. Abraham Lincoln took office at a time when tempers and dissension was high among the southern and northern states. He did not want to be the instigator of war and so merely waited for the south to fire first. The north as the defender of unity was born from this strategic move and the unity of the nation became the first and foremost cause worth fighting for in the Civil War. But when the violence kept coming, something else had to be blamed for the atrocity -- sin -- perhaps slavery. Lincoln, being attuned to the people's opinion of the day decided to announce his intent to abolish slavery. If this announcement had come before the war, he would have lost all of his support and would have definitely lost the election...but he did not. He won the election by a land-slide (though the percentages of support for him drastically decreased at the same time). Anyway, the point is that the church during this period was split on the issue of slavery -- the southern churches preaching for the institution of slavery, and the northern churches preaching against. Each church cited biblical support for their argument. Biblically, the issue of slavery could not be reconciled. In fact it has been suggested that the South actually had a stronger biblically backed argument than did the north as they accused the north of merely secumming to an adopted value alien to Scripture.

Since the Civil War and the deeply rooted religious crusader mindset, the fusion of nationalism with Christianity has led to an American theocracy that perhaps violates traditional Christian tenets for the sake of democracy. And democracy justifies itself in terms somewhat familiar to Christianity and yet is fundamentally and teleologically different from it. And this is the world American Christians are born into and enculturated to support.

The Secondary Nature of Intellectual Endeavors

In the not so distant past, thinking was all there was...an interesting idea there, juxtaposition of ideas here, jaded connections over there, and a wonderfully complex yet simple model to tie them nicely into a bow...Merry Christmas. But thinking as all there is? Epistemically conceited and ideologically blackmailed, my only real joy once came from the satisfyingly existential brain-farting encouraged by the academic community. What misplaced pleasure this is that separates the mind from the body, thought from action, theory from reality. A life-course can be criticized as merely living the life of a corpse, trodding the narrow path of life devoid of its essence in bloom if that life merely exists in the mind. Aristotelian potentiality does not come to fruition, into true actuality only in the mind. Modern-day academia is right in taking our minds to places not yet in existence, so drastically different in every shape and size that they seem as opposites. However, these endeavors should also exist to aid in practical, every-day decision-making rather than merely the thinking that goes into writing academic papers on practical issues when nothing is actually being done regarding the issues addressed. Placing the human brain on a pedestal can be a bit dangerous when it becomes such an elevated speciality seated on an altar of scientific inquiry while other matters are left on the wanting end of the utilitarian spectrum, i.e. poverty relief, etc.

All this to say that perhaps my search for what matters most only matters most because of my search for "it" and what matters most has always been and will always be despite my search for whatever that is. What matters most is somehow connected to the bond that unites my family -- my wife, my son, our extended family and friends. Call it "Love" if you will. Not "that good ol' feelin'" love, not that "I luv u baby" love, not that "I love you because I have to" love, not that "chemical-impulses-in-the-brain-instinctual-parent-husband-clan" love. There is an inherent blessing in the kind of love that exists in my life today with my wife and son...a blessing that matters most to me...and will continue to the rest of my days...

No better result exists devoid of a teleological motive of love for an other person.

"Me"-thinks selfishly

What do we consider beneficent act? An act with no selfish motive done purely because some being in nature sets an example to act or so "moves" us to act, or, because there exists a universal morality which binds human beings to so act for survival purposes or because the universe is ordered as such to elicit, to guide action in some form or fashion somehow balancing the universe? I don't mean to start of with such questions and perhaps I have started by asking the wrong questions in the first place, but the questions merely segue into what I really feel the need to blog about. This entry is about, surprise surprise, human nature (such a daunting discussion to be sure -- but a very relevant one that needs never end). Why do we act the way that we do making this decision and not that, choosing this cup of coffee over that, choosing to go on mission trips rather than cleaning our houses, choosing to save a boy's life in Africa rather than buying a year's supply of chocolate? To get to the nitty-gritty, what are our motives for acting? From the general public and according to public opinion our motives can be one of two things (or perhaps both): selfish motives for acting (motives which are made for oneself) or beneficent motives for acting (motives made for the benefit of another). Taking this a bit further, these can be divided a bit further for clarification. A selfish motive may be a beneficent one as well, while a beneficent motive may serve well as a selfish motive. The line between selfish and beneficent may be harder to draw than the person contemplating an action may even realize.

But honestly, how often are we making a decision solely for the good of another without an element of selfish motive involved? I've found that the two components of motive are inseparable with regards to a beneficent act (in most cases). A truly beneficent act without a selfish motive would perhaps be better realized in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth to Christians, or perhaps Buddha to Buddists, or perhaps the theoretical potential of the human brain by contemporary scientists. A selfish act requires no beneficent motive as beneficence becomes merely a happenstance by-product of actions arising from pure selfish motive. To give an example of what I'm talking about, I can decide to help a child in another country because I believe it to be right. When I make this decision I perhaps making it under the pretense that I'm helping another, which in turn gives me a feeling of pleasure with myself for doing what I believe to be right? What I believe to be right need not be right, but because I believe it to be right it is right to me and because it is right to me and because I gain a sense of satisfaction with doing what I believe to be right then my motive and act is not solely beneficent. Here it is probably significant to divide selfishness a bit further. Perhaps we can suggest that a selfish motive is not necessarily a negative as popular culture makes it out to be. To be selfish and to think of the self is not necessarily a bad thing. We are one being among cultures of beings and we think with our own brains, we eat with our own mouth's, we speak with our own tongues. We are individuals in communities. Never have we thought solely for ourselves as human beings, but as individuals in communities. Because of a strong push for the individual in our culture it is often forgotten that we live in communities and thrive because of them. We don't thrive on our own. To think selfishly is natural since we are individuals, but to resort to solely selfish motives neglecting our communal nature is what I would consider negative selfishness, while selfishness that exists as a builder and motivator of relationships in community is positive selfishness. Whether an act or decision is made for a negatively selfish reason or a positively selfish reason (accompanied with a beneficent motive) is most times difficult to ascertain by anyone wanting to study (from an etic perspective) or examine, say, why a President chooses to go to war, or perhaps why a person decides to drink this coffee instead of that coffee.

Human beings are beings in constant tension between whole individuals and parts of communities, (for Christians) being made in the image of God (???) and yet not God, being in time and our perception of timelessness. We cannot escape being both selfish and beneficent because both characteristic of all human beings. I'm not making any claims concerning human nature here though this brief discussion has touched on some issues, because the discussion drifts off into various discussions on the defining of the terms "human" and "nature" which pretty much kill any discussion of "human nature" over disciplinary lines (i.e. religions, science, etc). Returning to the point of this discussion, is is significant to realize that we think selfishly and there is no way of escaping selfish motive. Of course I was raised and taught in the system of western ideological academia and very much have grown in locales and communities that tend to put emphasis on the power of the individual. The arena of ideas from which I speak can only arrive from this background and locale. Various cultures emphasize beneficence, the good of tribe, above all other values. And as such beneficence becomes the selfish motive as well, satiating the individual and group motive in acting. But does the way I categorized these terms (i.e. "selfish", "beneficent") really fit into such a scenario? Maybe not. Maybe I'm not being fair to other cultures, and this is a valid complaint, but as I said I am speaking concerning most industrialized countries where capitalism and democracy have hold as governing and economic systems. However, despite this Rogerian repose, I believe that I could apply this system to other individuals in varying cultures (This belief merely being an educated guess which may or may not be right. And because this belief is merely contingent upon whether or not the model does work across the board, this belief is different from the belief say in God which is a belief beyond contingency -- one belief can be verified or falsified while the other merely is without contention.)

Here's uncle Tim's advice: You're always going to be selfish. Be mindful of whether or not your selfish motives benefit others, strengthening relationships. When you act for the sake of others, it's okay to feel good about it, though your motive for doing the act was partially for that "good feelin'".

Conflict Resolution -- Now or Eventually?

Confict and violence have always been two concepts we experience throughout our lives resonating with various images that come to mind when the two words are heard. Perhaps for we Americans: Bush, Iraq, Iran, N Korea, murder, lack of morals (whatever they may be). But what is our responsibility as individuals to see that violence is minimized when conflict arises? Again and again I think we sheltered Americans find it hard to think out of our own comfort zones, ignoring the pain and violence that exist beyond our created artificial bubbles of personal space. This is not to put down those who go on mission trips, those people who volunteer time at orphanages, soup kitchens, environment clean-up, those who donate money to help children in Africa...this is to inform you that your money and time are perhaps wasted efforts in the global arena due to government confiscations of funds, the temporary nature of mission trips and volunteering which tend to cause more damage than good when you go back to comfort while the pain and violence continue elsewhere. Speaking specifically of conflict resolution in some African countries, Middle Eastern countries, Asian countries, the individual willing to give aid is limited by the governance of more than one country and by international rules and regulations. Thus for the individual to aid in resolution, the individual must rely on the governing body under which he or she lives to forward the aid. However, the specific government finds itself in similar entanglements worrying about such things as free trade, alliances, oil...yadayadayada...power. Conflict resolution propositions at the nation-state level can only be acceptable if a, b, and c are met. Right? Unless you have a cowboy President like George W. Right? Let's ask ourselves a question. Did George W make his decision to go to war with Iraq dependent upon whether a, b, c conditions were right to do so or did he make the decision to rid the world of a violent dictator? Depending upon which way a person leans, the answers get quite complex and conspiracy theory-esque. This brings me to a more important question. Should we wait until a country ends the violence for itself or should we, if we can, step in to bring it to a close much more quickly? Is there a certainty to how many casualties there will be either way? My gut answer is to avoid violence to end violence setting an example of violence as the answer to conflict resolutions. Would I swim out to save Adolph Hitler if he were drowning in a lake if I knew the atrocities he was responsible for during the second World War committing. In this situation, the act of violence would be ignoring the pleas for help and allowing him to drown. Granted, this does not compare with the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam since this violent act is perhaps a bit more active (or perhaps not depending upon ones perception of the act). Non-violence is perhaps a critical understanding firmly implanted during the Civil Rights movement within the United States by the late Martin Luther King jr. There is a power in nonviolence I agree, but the other side to the Civil Rights movement, less mentioned are the militant ones who fought and died for their civil rights...which was more effective? I've seen various arguments to date. Unfortunately escaping violence is a bit harder than most Americans would expect since we do live in imaginary bubbles where violence is somewhat foreign and exotic and atrocious. The average American does not understand violence as it is, but only as it is in what they've read or seen on a short stay abroad, or seen on television. Referring to what I said earlier, the average American perhaps gets more out of their attempts to resolve "the other" conflicts than those "others" affected by that conflict since the individual is limited in what he or she can do abroad. However, the individual does have a local existential responsibility to recognize the violence that occurs not just on the scale of governments, but in their own personal lives every-day. Look up the term "violence" in the dictionary and if you want to do something on the global scale start on the local being conscious of the every-day violence that occurs. Know yourself. Democrats -- realize the violence that ensues from hate for the Republican governing bodies. Republicans -- realize that violene that ensues from hate for Democrats unable to understand your reasoning. Arguing is beneficial in this circumstance, but hate merely kills the argument and divides people onto sides. We're criticizing violence elsewhere but merely accepting ideological violence here as if physical violence and ideological violence have nothing to do with each other. Both kill the possibility of conflict resolution. Let's get in gear America. No more taking sides, no more hate, no more violence, and for goodness sakes make an effort to think for yourselves.

The Right Questions

Not all questions demand answers even though answers depend on questions as their means to life beyond the mental capacities from which they come. It is always significant as a dependent rational animal to ask questions...but only the right questions. The wrong questions lead down a road to nothingness. So let's not ask the questions until they be the right questions to ask, lest we risk falling into the abyss of the individual mind. What criterion can we use to assess the difference between right and wrong questions? How do we know that the question we have is the right question to ask? Criteria are not easy to come by or to sort out, but asking oneself whether or not their thesis, dissertation topic, paper, book topic, business discussion, whatever is asking a pertinent question is worth contemplating and sometimes re-thinking. Asking the right questions perhaps are what truly creative and eccentric minds do best while the rest of us slug on in what we consider to be normality (and what I consider to be conformity). In other words, perhaps it is easier to ask the right questions when normality itself is questioned, lending us the freedom to ask what before was perhaps out-of-bounds. For most of us this is near impossible...while true artists manage to use the tools of normality to ask what truly lies at its root, striving for something beyond just a clear-cut answer. For the artist, there is no search for answers, but rather the search for the right questions to ask concerning the many answers/results of living. In our busy lives we can get distracted by pop-questions of our culture and other paradigmatic manifestations of questions believing them to be the most right, the most advanced, concrete. I don't pretend to have the right questions in mind when writing this little blog entry, and I do not lightly judge the questions people spend their lives asking. What I am saying in this blog is a repeat of what I have said in the past: perhaps a good way of assessing the questions we are asking is to ask ourselves, "do these questions lead to answers that contribute to healthy relationships." Asking the right questions should always have a practical and moral responsibility as a prerequisite, otherwise a person is lost in academic (taking a word from Star Wars) "poo-doo."

Violence and hate behind American politics

With very little time in my schedule I find it hard to find time to blog anymore, which is rather depressing since I really enjoy it. But this topic just couldn't wait. Having moved from a city in the northern part of Texas to one in the southern part of New Jersey has been very interesting. There is a priority shift, a different perception on values, a different political climate, all of which have to do with the various socio-economic situations of the people who live in these places. This is not to suggest that one can merely contrast the two locales. And this is an important point. Escaping bias and a hatred of the other in both locations the verbal and political violence that ensues because of bias is ridiculous and down-right childish. Of course I am speaking more with regards to political perceptions rather than with regards to any other category. To be quite honest valid reasoning for why northern democrats despise George Bush has been replaced by hate rather than with reason. Let's call this political hatred -- and it doesn't just apply to Democrats. Political hatred is a valuable tool to those who understand that the average American has been hoodwinked by American media propaganda. In other words it's as if we promote people-bashing for fun and games to belong to a particular group -- Democrat of Republican. How intelligent it makes a person feel to bully people within their own nation...

I am not exactly a George Bush proponent as president, however I do take seriously and attempt to intelligibly comprehend the actions he takes as president. His reasoning does not always parallel mine, though I cannot hatefully dismiss his decisions without properly analyzing them in accordance with my own values and perceptions of right. The major democratic arguments against George Bush merely play at weaknesses most times that would been minor if not hyped up by media outlets. The documentaries that attempted to uncover George Bushes' mindset merely began with bias and continued to connect threads that fit within the boundaries of that bias rather than attempting to uncover fact. It's as though the media does the thinking while the average American merely nods his or her head.

The reason this blog is aimed towards Democrats is because I am currently living in the Democractic northeast and have began noticing some of these things here. I am disassociated from aligning with a particular group. Many people are so convinced and so wrapped up in hate for George Bush that the entire South becomes the other, the enemy within; more conservative books go unread because they suggest something different than the accepted norm and in this way, liberalism (Democratic ideas) becomes conservative; northeasterners value independence, while somehow not admitting that independence is an illusion brought to you by a more capitalistic, secularist, and wealthy society. On a side note it is amazing how geography plays a role on a person's thinking. On the flip-side of the coin this particular type of behavior is characteristic of right-wingers in Texas as well. Why buy a book that Al Gore wrote on the environment when Al Gore is a democrat a republican might think.

Politicians are concerned with progress and biased politics when the two seemingly work against each other...though the two can't exist without the other in our democratic/capitalistic society. Bias is inevitable but it does not have to rob the truth of its essence or promote hate and violence.

Rationality with no regards for Reason

In an earlier blog entry sometime last year I sought to expand what might be considered rational, however I'm not sure if I made this distinction between making a rational decision and making a decision according to reason. The two are not the same, and is significant to make note of it. What is rational to me is not necessarily rational to another, where reason tends to lack the same connotative plurality and ambiguity in what is rational. Therefore I can rationalize even the most unreasonable actions, in fact most of my poorer decisions are highly rationalized. Working at Borders Books part time I manage to rationalize buying "just one more book" three times a week or so. Needless to say, my speed-reading is not up to the task of my bibliophobic tendencies. This book-buying addiction is perhaps rational for me since my duties and hobbies include reading and study...though I neglect other possible consequences and rational actions in pursuit of personal interest. Perhaps it is this personal interest that is driving a wedge between a rational decision and a rational decision in accordance with reason. I have not yet suggested what is meant by reason and I don't expect to put forward a concrete definition of the term since words by their very nature are adapted and conformed to those who rationalize. Free reason is characterized by its fluidity, its dynamism; though it is limited by its awareness, by the possibilities at a socio-temporal point in history. Free reason, universal reason, transcendent reason then only exists in a single moment free of time and is gone as that moment passes. Reason is contingent upon circumstances then. And with the understanding that this is a multi-cultural world where rationality is not concretely defined, reason is a teleological notion, wherein lies the search for Truth among the differences that separate and mark existence. I'm not debating whether or not this teleological characterization of the concept is in fact pointing towards a divinity, or perhaps towards a greater understanding of ourselves, or perhaps towards new life-saving technology but it is pointing somewhere towards something. Can we associate reason with logic as we define it today or does that perhaps limit what can be reasonable? Are we preventing ourselves from understanding reason in the utilization of modern philosophical and mathematical logic, or perhaps defining reason a bit more linearly. This linear reasoning is where those in academia tend to fall (at least in my experience). The conditioning of an academic to logically assess any given situation is a very handy skill when analyzing business scenarios, when going into scientific fields, or going into any fields where predictability is important. But this approach only limits academics in how and why they think and research the way they do. Are we as academics making a contribution, helping to inform and inspire others to understand what is reasonable or are we merely arguing amongst our ourselves apart from non-academics (I use these terms loosely)? As academics we're perhaps cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world and later feeding their appetites to supply us with grant money for our research. Our rationalization of our lives becomes unreasonable since reason should encompass more than just personal gain. True reason has no place for 'us' and 'them' only Truth. An aside: I wouldn't hastely try to separate reason and art.