Credit Crisis Visualized

A friend had this linked in his google chat status message. I think it's awesome! Reminds me of the visualizations of the Hitchhiker's Guide in the movie.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Open During Renovation

I'm fiddling with the colors and layout of the blog. Please excuse the mess.

Also, feel free to let me know what you think. I'm especially wanting to make sure it stays readable.

Implications of What We Say

Today in chapel it was announced that "Lament and Repent" groups will be forming. Not a whole lot of information was given, just enough to encourage people to contact them for more, but the idea is that these groups will form around a particular subject to help people cope with that topic. Sounds like healing and/or accountability groups. I was frustrated, however, by what could be inferred from what was said. Ironically Dr. Minger then proceeded to preach on how the words we use as Christians often pose a problem, because of what could be meant by what we say (she highlighted as an example the phrase "And then God showed up.")

Here are the groups that were mentioned (I didn't write them down so I may have the wording a bit off, but they get as close as I can to what was said):

• A group on abortion: healing from abortion, post abortion care, etc.
• A group for single men struggling with pornography and addiction
• A group for married men struggling with pornography and addiction
• A group for women who have internal wounds that need healing, growing more open to God...

I have a problem with this. I do not have a problem with focusing on men with pornography issues, because we still seem to be the focus population. But the way these groups were listed excludes 1) women, married or single, who have struggles with pornography and 2) men with internal wounds that need healing, or need to open up more to God. Why is it that only women have internal wounds? Or need to grow closer to God? Why is it that only men have sex problems? Well of course that's not true, so the real question is: why is it socially appropriate only for men to have sex/porn problems, and only for women to admit internal woundedness? It appears to me that these group boundaries enforce the idea that only certain things are allowed to be talked about by certain people. They appear to continue supporting Christian social taboos about what we are and are not allowed to admit, which supports ministers of all types and genders from being able to admit their struggles, which supports ministers failing fantastically and creating mass havoc when they do, which supports people ostracizing those with problems from the church, and on and on and on...

I wish they had said:

• A group on abortion: healing from abortion, post abortion care, etc.
• A group for those struggling with pronography and addiction. Groups will be formed according to marital status and gender (or whichever term is deemed most communicative here)
• A group for those who have internal wounds that need healing, growing more open to God... Groups will be formed according to gender (or whichever term is deemed most communicative here)

If the gender comments seem to also be too troublesome, leave them out! Put in something about if you are considering a group, but have questions about format or privacy or support, ask us. These seem more open. The others say: if you have certain struggles, we're here for you. If you have other struggles, sorry, better luck next time. To me the modications say: whatever your struggle is, we're here for you.

Slumdogs Don't Get to be Millionaires

Or at least that's what most of the characters in the film suggest. A recurring theme is that slumdogs stay slumdogs, and are only allowed to do certain things. Seems to be a focus upon karma: if you are a slumdog, there must be a reason for it, and you don't really get to try to be something else until the next life. Know your position! But this comes into conflict with another thought: what is written is our destiny, and God determines what is written. Hence "God is good" being the dying words of Salim (though I'm still trying to figure out all of what's going on there). And hence the reason Jamal becomes a millionaire and finally the girl of his dreams: not karma, but rather, because it is written.

I loved the movie. Found it extremely sad and depressing and could hardly control my bawling through the credits, but it was wonderful. Though next time I watch it I might skip the latrine scene...

It's the Money, Stupid!

I believe that there are very few policies or structures or even just plain normal things that go on in the USA (or the rest of the world, for that matter) that are not primarily motivated by economics and economic security. Luta has been advocating against rising cesarean rates for a while now, and sent me an article on repeat cesareans and the problem with them. There's a few things in there that tie into making money, but here's one quote that boils it down to money: ' "It's a numbers thing," says Dr. Shelley Binkley, an ob-gyn in private practice in Colorado Springs who stopped offering VBACs in 2003. "You don't get sued for doing a C-section. You get sued for not doing a C-section." ' There are health concerns either way, and no one should be saying that all we need is one option. But what they are saying is that people need choices, and they need to have the right information to make an informed choice. Leaning on people and skewing information so that they make a particular decision that benefits the provider more than the reciever should not be a practice in health care. I think that the decisions should be made based on what is best for the health of the reciever, not what makes the most money.

Character vs. Story Arc

Or "Why I like more than ."

Monday night I was talking to a friend and fellow student about TV shows that we like (apparently we like many of the same ones), and I started wondering what it is about some shows that annoy me while others don't. I assumed "Lost" drove me crazy because the story doesn't actually go anywhere, and there's certainly some truth to that (I gave up after season 2. If it got better after that, sorry, but I'm waiting until it's done). But I assumed that was the main reason, and that since J. J. Abrams seems to have a very hard time telling a whole story, "Lost" could end very much like "Alias," which is to say, in a very dissatisfying and totally not closed way. But then it occurred to me that I love "Firefly" (and others like the new "Battle Star Galactica") despite the fact that the story line moseys about. And then there's shows like Bones where a consistent story line isn't the main point at all (well, i guess that's Firefly too). On the other hand much of the anime I like runs for one or two seasons (a few dozen episodes), has a set story, and often is judged based on the quality of the ending. "Spaced" and the original "Office" are also examples of this, and in my opinion demonstrate well that if you're going to tell a story, tell it clearly and get to the point.

So what is it about some shows that I can tolerate a lack of storyline, but with others I won't? I think it's about character. Some shows start off presenting a character or set of characters, with an initial conflict that we as viewers can assume will develop and progress but generally remain throughout the show. Buffy had vampires and various demons to kill, Firefly has the oppressive ruling jerks to avoid and various people to steal from... And then there are situational shows that have some underlying character development connected to particular character plots, but in general they address a particular situation, solve it within one episode (occasionally continued on to a second) and move on to the next topic: Bones, CSI (though I'm not the biggest fan of melodrama by any means), Law and Order, Criminal Minds, most comedies, and so forth. But when the show begins, it tries to hook viewers with characters in a setting and story. On the other hand, shows like Lost seem to focus on hooking viewers with a setting and story that has characters in it.

May seem like semantic hair-splitting because of course both kinds of characters and stories, but to me it is about where the primary focus lies. I'm OK with story focused shows, like I said, I love shows like Spaced or the British Office that do that. But they do it quickly, focused, and get to the point. With Lost, frankly, I don't care about the characters. It's true that I find most of them to be weak and annoying and pointless, but more importantly the show hooked me with its story and mystery and intrigue (just like Alias did), not with the characters. On the other hand, Firefly hooked me with characters right from the first show (by first, i mean first on the DVD's as they were meant to be seen. I missed the actually airing on TV fiasco), and I still remember Jayne counting his share of zero profits... wonderful! hilarious! I'm hooked! and guess what, Joss Whedon kept the good times rolling with wonderful characters throughout. And when the show got slammed early, finally they put out the movie to wrap things up, and he proved that he can tell a story as well. J.J. Abrams, on the other hand, moseys into season 2 of Lost and promptly axed the story, pouring molasses all over it and freezing it in place, and chose to air pointless episodes of morons trapped on an island being more concerned with their own petty needs for entertainment than basic survival. Yawn. Sorry, what now? Pthbt and moving on to better things, like Battle Star Galactica...

If you're going to tell me a story, then do it already (I think Abrams should watch "The Lookout" and "Secret Window" because they make good points: in order to tell a good story, you gotta know the ending). If you want me to be interested in characters, then start with that. But don't try to re-hook me after the show begins with lame characters in order to pointlessly prolong the airing of your show just for money. Because then I'll go around making sure that everyone knows I hate your show. And refuse to watch anything else you make. Sorry, but when you greatly disappoint me, that's what I do.

God and Perfection

God, at least from the perspective of the world's major monotheistic religions, is considered to be perfect. Actually others would agree with this it seems, since Aristotle is the one who came up with the idea of God being the Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is conceived as "being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating." (Check out wikipedia for a bit more) This Unmoved Mover is the beginning of all movement and action in the universe, and yet never moved it-/him-/her-self. In other words, nothing and no one ever moved the Prime (Unmoved) Mover. Probably not hard to see where some could have then concluded that the Christian God is the Prime Mover, first cause of everything.

One reason for imaging a Prime Mover as Unmoved is because everything in motion needs something to have set it in motion. Eventually something needs to never have moved, or else it is just turtles all the way down, and western-type thinkers go nuts. But also wrapped up in this are concepts of perfection. A perfect being never changes, because a perfect being has no need to change into anything. After all, things only change in order to improve, right? And what improvement can a perfect being have? And if one is to never change, one cannot move, because movement involves change of posture, shift in space and time, and other seemingly inconsequential and yet very real changes.

A bit of a problem here, I think, when it comes to God. Because if God is not moving at all, then it raises some questions as to how God is involved in our lives. There are some ways to answer this, but it seems to get very abstract and complicated very fast. And there's a much simpler solution: prefection does not require immobility. If the Trinity tells us that God has been loving and giving from before all time, then we know that even in perfection, God is doing things other than contemplating God's self contemplating (leave it to Aristotle to come up with that anyways). So then, God is ever-loving and ever-giving, not ever-not-moving. In fact it seems that if God is anything, it's ever-moving. Of course if God is everywhere at once then God doesn't really need to move in a human sort of way or by passing through space, but at least God is certainly active. And if God isn't active, God isn't much use, in my opinion. Great, we have something that started us, but that's not love, because love involves interaction and caring, at the very least.

So instead of perfection and unchanging meaning unmoving, what if perfection and unchanging means "not changing in essence?" God can move around, and make things move, but God's essence and character is never changed. God doesn't need to grow or mature or learn new things: That's perfection, I think. But that doesn't mean God isn't involved. And if our human emotions are some reflection upon God, perhaps God can respond to humans. In a sense, we can move God. But only in a certain sense, for God has to have set it up in advance that we can do that. God didn't make us and then say "Well crap, now I can be moved. Boy that sure messes up my vacation." Instead, I think God might have said "If I make people, I want them to be like me so they can know true love and be able to truly worship me. Wellt hat means they have to be able to feel the relationship... and if it's only one sided, it doesn't really count. So, I'll let them spark my emotions." And then God dug hands into the dirt, and molded out Adam. And next thing you know there's messy emotions flying about all over the place, and sure enough, Abraham is working on God's emotions to get him (at least at the moment he was dressed up as a guy) to relent from burning Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes. And while God did still burn the place down, it wasn't because he was unmoved by Abraham's plea, but instead because Abraham didn't get the number low enough (or Lot didn't evangelize enough people, however you want to look at it).

God is not emotionless. I'm not quite sure how God could be love and good without emotions. I know those aren't emotions, but it's hard for me to figure how they can be known and measured and expressed without emotions, and if they aren't known and measured and expressed then are they really there at all? So, if God has emotions, or at least is capable of expressing reactions to people, then Unmoved Mover God isn't. God seems to be some other kind of perfect.

These ideas are not purely my own as much as my own ramblings on other people's ideas. Rodney Clapp I think is the first author where I bumped into this, but I could be wrong about that. I'm sure you could find other philosophers who are actually using footnotes writing about this. But hey, it's a blog, so I can just ramble, right?

Stereotypes

I know they are unavoidable, but it still strikes me when I detect stereotypes being blatantly used. Perhaps they aren't blatantly used, perhaps the user is not fully aware of the fact that it is a stereotype being employed, but lately I ran into two being used to communicate a broader message and it made me pause.

First is in The Shack (yes, that again). This one is definitely a spoiler, so if you haven't read it and don't want it ruined, go away. Otherwise, you probably know (or don't care to be told) that one of the persons of the Trinity is portrayed as a heavy set African-American woman. There are some good literary reasons for this, such as breaking the idea that God the Father is white, or necessarily male. But my purpose here isn't to go into whether or not it is valid to portray Papa as anything other than a man, but rather to point out that once the initial break from the stereotype from God is made, the author moves smoothly into another stereotype. Namely, heavy set black women 1) love cooking as much if not more than they love eating 2) love mothering people and caring for them, especially when they hurt 3) are sassy 4) speak their mind and 5) do things that no one expects or that are perhaps considered mildly socially inappropriate. I've seen this on TV, in movies, in books, frankly it just isn't impressive anymore. Those mediums often use stereotypes to set a character, it's just easier that way. What bugs me is that people seem to be wow'd by Young's use of this image for God, but Young is stereotyping just in a different way. I mean, that stereotype I learned in "How To Think Like A White-Boy 101." They offered that in high school, I think. Collard greens, fruity chicken, please. Try a little harder. She doesn't quite talk right to match the stereotype, but I don't know if that's because I'm missing the boat here or because Young doesn't actually know how his stereotype talks. I dunno.

Second one that bugged me recently was in a Newsboys song ("He Reigns") that we sung in church last Sunday. I like the song, not sure it works in our church because I think it takes a certain style and energy to pull that off, but the theme was appropriate for the occasion and it's not a bad song. Luta reminded me what I'd noticed in the past, however: it relies on stereotypes. Asian believers are, of course, on fire with the Holy Spirit. Duh, right? And it's naturally the plains in Africa that sing out redemption (slaves maybe?), because duh, Africa is nothing but plains, right? And 1) the Amazon is the only place with heavy rain and 2) The amazon best summarizes South America. Guess they ran out of space, either that or figured mentioning their home continent of Australia would look self serving, and those of us in the so-called West don't need to be referenced because we all assume we're the standard for comparison anyhow. And the song is all about the variety of God's People worshipping God, so mentioning the people who are assumed normal just doesn't do it. Like I said, I do actually like the song. But it seems a bit ridiculous to rely so much on stereotype. Simple artistry and imagery, yes. And apparently they aren't painting a picture of the depth of variety in each culture and each place, but instead highlighting the shallowness of variety across the Earth. Why not drop the location-worship connection? List the worship verbs, and then the geographic nouns, separately? And list a few more, please, because I love the mountains in Africa, and I'm sure someone somewhere loves the plains elsewhere.

I Don't Live In Lexington

I don't have anything against Lexington, KY, but I don't live there. I live in Wilmore. This seems straightforward to me, but apparently some people have a hard time with this concept, and it bugs me. There have been a number of times where people on campus have encouraged us to get involved in Lexington, because that's our city. Well, it might be the closest thing to what most consider a city, but as far as communities where ministry is needed, Wilmore has needs, as does Nicholasville (which most people drive through on their way to Lexington). Lexington may have a greater amount of needs, I don't deny that. But if the point is to be working in our community, why call Lexington our community when not all of us (maybe even most of us) don't live there? Just seems like it encourages draining this community: if we live in Wilmore, but serve elsewhere, we're basically just a sleeper community for ministry, draining Wilmore of housing resources but not adding anything back. That sounds bad to me.

So the latest in this series of frustrations occured in church last Sunday. The guest speaker was speaking on missions, and was explaining that according to one commentary (Rick Warren), the Great Commission could be interpreted as the following:

• Jerusalem means your community that you live in.
• Judea means your state or country as a whole.
• Samaria means your country, but a culture other than your own.
• And the ends of the earth means, well, everywhere else.

Sounds good to me. No problem. Until he said "well I guess in a town like Wilmore your Jerusalem would be Lexington." What??? Ok, so Jerusalem is a city, a relatively big one. Is that what he means, that it has to be a city? Then the definition should be modified from "your community" to "the biggest city near you." But that seems a bit odd, since that could very well be Judea or Samaria depending on where you live. I mean for areas of Appalachia (which is where the mission this guy was representing is located) Jerusalem then could be hours away, and certainly in a different culture. But if that's what Jesus meant, why bother with the distinctions? Or, if people insist on finding different meanings and interpretations for each place in the list, why give them one that could mean nothing?

I was annoyed. I don't live in Lexington, I live in Wilmore. Please, it's not hard to tell the difference.

Blue is the new Green?

For all you earth-lovin'/creation saving/treehugger/eco-defender types who are also addicted to your portable technology, you may now rejoice: Samsung has released a solar powered phone! Guess they're tired of "green" because they've called it "Blue Earth." There are some skeptics out there, and they do make some good points, but apparently we have to wait a while to get this phone anyways so there's some time to get our hopes up. Oh, and by "eco friendly" they don't just mean "we won't suck juice out of the wall" but also "we won't poison you with our products." I always like that. Consistency people, it's a good thing.

New dream list: phones I don't need to charge, cars I don't need to charge, backpacks that charge the things I do need to charge... Who needs grid, anyways, right?

Violence and Video Games

Violence in video games is a hot topic. Some try to get it banned, some say it has no impact. Many studies suggest that violence in video games and movies and media in general does in fact have an impact on the people consuming it, and that this impact is negative. However, a new study put a bit of a new angle on the problem. This one, instead of proving that violence makes people violent, decided to determine how much violence plays a part in gamer satisfaction. What they discovered was, gamers are happy playing games even without graphic violence. I'm not sure how accurate this study is, and I'm sure more need to be done, but I could have told them that. Granted, it sure is fun to blow the hell out of a BigDaddy with lightning bullets, or slash some rogue demon to pieces with a fire-enchanted sword, but the fun of the game is in winning, completing the story, not getting blasted myself. Or, as the research says, control and competence. That sure is it. I've gotten in to some violent games, but they often leave a wierd feeling. Pure puzzle games don't always attract me, but then there's Puzzle Quest to make somewhat of an exception to that. Sure, part of the story involves killing varmints and demons and other things in the player's way, but violence is not depicted. The player matches gems, and "kills" the opponent, but all you see is points being reduced to match certain actions.

So, we gamers apparently are not in it for the gore. We're in it for fun and competence and because we're suckers for control, apparently. But then this seems to raise the question: Why is violence such a major part of so many new games? Why the focus on realistic violence? If that's not what we're playing the games for, what is it even doing in there?

Bionic Body Armor, for Real.

Slashdot.com always has some interesting news on it. A recent tidbit linked to an article on bullet-dodging body-armor. No joke. IBM filed for a patent on it. Seems that it will work primarily on long range fire, so its usefulness would be for high profile people, like presidents. The common foot soldier probably won't be benefiting from this. Next I predict we'll be seeing bullets that suppress the ability of the armor to detect them, and perhaps assassins will go back to the up-close-and-personal approach. After all, this won't protect from bombs, close gun fire, knives, etc. So, maybe it's good that we can defend ourselves from snipers. But maybe it will just change the face of violence once again, and war will go from long-range and impersonal to up close and personal again. Complaints have been that with so much technology in war, we can kill by using a computer screen; taking away the personal element makes it easier to kill, and easier to make the decision to do so, and this can lead to a dangerous slippery slope. But if new armors prevent long range killing, maybe we're on the way out of impersonal killing... or maybe it will just all change.

To Know

Merriam-Webster has this to say about the word "know":

know
Pronunciation: \ˈnō\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): knew \ˈnü also ˈnyü\ ; known \ˈnōn\ ; know·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnāwan; akin to Old High German bichnāan to recognize, Latin gnoscere, noscere to come to know, Greek gignōskein
Date: before 12th century

transitive verb
1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of
2 a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive verb
1: to have knowledge
2: to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech.

In The Shack, the argument is made multiple times that if people really knew God's love, and knew God's nature, then we wouldn't doubt God's goodness when bad stuff happens. God tells Mack that the reason Mack is mad at God, has distance in his relationship with God and others, and keeps getting hung up on the brutal murder of his young daughter Missy, is Mack's lack of understanding of God's love. If Mack just knew God loved him, Mack would be cool with the whole thing. Not to say Mack wouldn't hurt at all, or miss Missy, but he'd understand that God was still good and in control and wouldn't be so upset about it. It seems in part that Mack would be ok because he'd also know that God was hurt by the whole situation as well.

I'm hung up on this "knowing" God loves us. Seems that Young is using it in the sense of 1-a-3, 1-b-3, or some sense of 2. In other words, "knowing" is connected to experience, and is a deep and profound trust in the knowledge. In this case knowing God loves means truly trusting God loves. This is a fine definition of "know" which is often used. I think it was Plato who said that people who know what is good, do what is good; those who don't do good don't really know it, because anyone who knows it, does it.

Call me postmodern, but I have problems with this. "Know" seems like it can be a looser term than that. I think this use of the term places too much reliance on the idea that knowledge based on fact or experience is somehow very solid and reliable. However, someone can come along and debate the truth of that knowledge; a new experience can alter one's perception and interpretation of prevoius experiences and thus question the reliability of former knowledge; memory can get distorted, screwing up one's sense of knowledge... over reliance on "know it means you trust it" drives me nuts. I'd prefer to just throw "trust" or "belief" in there and clear up the whole mess.

Why? I think it's just cleaner than talking about multiple kinds of knowing, like "head knowing" vs. "experiential knowing." A common example uses a chair: I may declare that I know the chair can hold me, and yet not trust it enough to sit in it. On the other hand, I can choose to sit in it, and find through experience that it really can hold me. I think to clarify "knowing" in this case just is confusing. Call the first "think" or "think I know" and the second "trust" or "believe" or "experience." Just drop knowing right out of it. Try this out: I may declare whatever I want about my cognitive acceptance of the chair's ability to hold me, yet until I park my behind in it and let the chair keep me from crashing in embarassing manner onto the floor, I leave room for others to doubt that I trust or believe the chair can actually hold me. If I refuse to sit in it, because I fear crashing, then I don't believe it will hold me.

And now I think we can talk about why it isn't as simple as "knowing" God loves us. Here's the problem: if God loves me, why does bad stuff happen to me? Young's answer is: See, idiot, you don't know God loves you, or you wouldn't ask such a stupid question. Sorry, forgive me, but I'm human. When I think a human loves me, I think that other person 1) won't hurt me and 2) will try to prevent harm from happening to me. When I percieve that person to hurt me, or to fail to protect me, I often question his or her love for me. There's many ways to reconcile this, including: recognizing that people aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean he or she doesn't love me as much as s/he can; recognizing that people are not powerful enough to stop all harm, but again that isn't always a reflection on the reality of love; realizing that my perception may be off, and this spanking could actually be for my good and an act of true love. Thus, my trust in their love may temporarily fade, but I can correct that as I realize it wasn't an issue of their love or lack of it, but something else.

This, however, becomes sticky when I relate it to God. Because if God is perfect, and God is powerful enough to accomplish anything, that leaves only the problem of my perception. But it is incredibly difficult to reconcile certain pains with anything good or loving. Say, the murder of a little girl: how is eternity going to be better because she got raped and slaughtered than it would have been had she led a long, fulfilling life? Sure, people can attempt to answer that question, but the most predictable response to most answers will be a solid fist to the face, delivered by the wounded parent. "How dare you suggest that my daughter would have caused damage enough that her death now is better?" "How dare you suggest that God can love my daugher more than me?" or something along those lines. So, the issue, for me, becomes less a matter of knowing God loves me than God loves me. Somewhere in there, I need to figure out how I can continue to trust and believe in the love of God, when God doesn't demonstrate it the way I expect a human with God's powers were. Or, to put it more personally: I need to figure out how I can continue to trust and believe in the love of God when God doesn't do what I think I would do if I had God's powers in that situation.

Know whatever you want to know. Trust, however, is harder. And in a postmodern world where the ability to know becomes more and more debated, perhaps we should switch the conversation to Trust. Maybe if Mack quit trying to figure out how he could know God loved him even when Missy got killed, but instead decided to trust God anyways, he'd have gotten over it sooner. Not blind trust, but perhaps putting the testing aparatus on hold until the pain quieted down enough to allow a careful inspection of God. Then, perhaps, trust can return.

Endless Energy?

Cnet posted news that MIT undergrads developed a shock absorber that generates electricity. Whenever a car equipped with these absorbers hits a bump, it would generate electricity. This reminded me of an article I read a few years ago, I think in either Times or Newsweek, that mentioned someone working on a backpack for the military that would do something similar. Apparently the modern army can be tracked by following the trail of spent batteries. If a foot-soldiers backpack instead generated electricity, they could charge all of their electronic gear while they marched. The idea wa thtat there would be a device in the backpack that generated electricity by absorbing the impact of a person walking, similar I think to these shock absorbers. Even though this stuff is often first developed by or for military use (I've been told Ray Ban sunglasses and velcro were developed first for the USA Airforce), they can be put to use for many other purposes: imaging charging your laptop by walking across campus.

I know it would take energy and resources to make such things, but the idea of being able to generate usable electricty simply by walking is fascinating. I don't know how much energy it could create, but my sci-fi imaginings conjure ideas of electric cars that would rarely need to be charged by an external source, or being able to charge all of one's personal electronic devices without plugging them into an external source. Capturing electricity from people walking would be as renewable as solar or wind, and perhaps might motivate people to move around a bit more: if walking 30 minutes to work meant saving money on electricity at home, it might just motivate people.

Neat idea. I hope more sci-fi starts using this...

A note on Movies and Books

I love movies. And I love reading. And I love discussing movies and books with other people. I hope you will engage in that here with me. However I think I must warn you, that if I put up a post about a movie or a book, there very well may be plot spoiler information in the post. I'm not going to warn you each time, because I'm going to assume that you're smart enough not to read things you don't want to read. And how can I completely discuss something if I can't talk about the plot? So, consider yourself warned: spoilers ahead.

Jobs, Fulfillment, and Wall-E

I recently watched Wall-E. I love Pixar films, being disappointed only by Cars. And I totally loved Wall-E. I was cracking up, and though it was not only cute but somewhat profound. Sure, it might have beaten the "save the earth" message to death, but since I think we should preserve the earth, reduce our trash and footprint, and not be so lazy and depending on automated technology I don't really have a problem with that message.

I was intrigued by the personalities of the robots in Wall-E. From what I can tell, each bot has a task, or directive. Each bot must fulfill this directive, and in this they find fulfillment. Some directives occur constantly (picking up trash), others from time to time (EVE and M-O, for example, only performing when certain other parameters are met). Sometimes it is one bot acting solo, other times one bot activates another that activates another and so on until all tasks are performed. From a programming perspective, this is pretty simple: integrated loops and functions. In any case, the point is, bots have jobs.

And bots are only happy when they fulfill their job. The more they cannot fulfill their job, the more frustrated and angry and perhaps despondent they become. EVE is angry with Wall-E, not because he is lovestruck and she's not, not because he tags along like a puppy, but because she thinks he's preventing the completion of her task. This is not to say that there aren't other emotions involved (she does seem to actually like him and be sad when his escape pod blows up), but that a bot cannot be happy if the task is not done. Over time or if left alone, it appears that one of two things can happen: 1) the bot modifies the task 2) the bot becomes obsessed with the task. (1) is exemplified in Wall-E: he (i think it's a he) starts collecting interesting junk instead of just disposing of it, and becomes curious about other possibilities in life. But he still performs his job. (2) is exemplified in the psycho ward, and in M-O. The task must be done, and all the time, even if it violates the parameters for the job. The tennis ball server should only serve tennis balls in certain circumstances, presumably on a tennis court and when asked; however, the obsessed one serves tennis balls all the time, at everything. This is a malfunction. Yet M-O begins to border on this when he makes the decision to leave his assigned electro-path in pursuit of "foreign contaminant." He is doing the job assigned, but not within the parameters assigned, thus he's not truly fulfilling his programmed duty.

How much do our jobs determine our happiness? And is it when we do them the way we're told to, or the way we think they should be done? Should our psychological security really be wrapped up in task fulfillment?

The Shack and the Problem of Evil

I just finished reading The Shack by William P. Young. WilmoreUMC, the church we attend, is doing a book club as part of the Wednesday night programs, and this is the first book being discussed. I'd heard about the book before a few times. The first time was at the Community Life Interns retreat when students who were taking classes that had the book as a required text were talking about it (the class was Christian Psychodynamic Therapies, which may give credence to criticism that the book is more about using counseling/therapeutic language than it is about making a theological argument). They also were talking about the fuss created in a Christian bookstore where one of them worked, all over whether or not this book should be on the shelf. Personally, I think it should just stay on the shelf! Let people decide for themselves.

In any case, I enjoyed the book. Not the best I ever read, and when it comes to literary style, it was good, but not great. Fairly predictable, and for all the talk in the "forward" about Mack being such a bright guy, he sure was dense. Show me, don't tell me, please. I don't have major beefs with the theology/philosophy laid out, though it definitely relies more on personal relationship and feelings than it does on scripture to make its points. I don't think this has to reduce the strength of the argument, rather I think Young does an excellent job of discussing what are often thorny and confusing theological issues in a way that is very down to earth and understandable. At the same time, however, I was a bit frustrated with how easily he blows by disagreements with his theology. Not that I disagree with him, but the other ideas about God are not formed soley by people trying to control others, but sometimes people have struggled long and hard, and developed strong Biblical proofs for their positions. Doesn't mean I agree with them, but I think certain respect to their intentions should be made.

However when all is said and done, I don't think The Shack is about soteriology, ecclesiology, or anything like that; and only barely about theology. Instead, I think it's about theodicy, that is, the Problem of Evil. What do we do with God in the face of horrible evil? Is God good? Strong? Powerful? Trustworthy? When little girls get brutally murdered, the answer to some or all of these questions may seem to "no, definitely not." Young definitely explores how God can be good and love and powerful, and yet evil can happen. The exploration of the relationship of the Trinity certainly is a good way to do this. But in the end, the answer is the same as it often is: from Human eyes, on this side of eternity, we can't know what's truly going on. So just trust and believe, already! While I understand this argument and think it has strength, I still find it profoundly personally unsatisfying. It is hard to consider how eternity will be better because little girls get raped, or millions of people get executed, or because we have had two miscarriages.

Ok, fine, Young says it isn't; that's not God's plan; God is just letting us be free humans. Yes, the freewill argument does hold strength. But the question on God's character remains because of this: God says pray and ask and we shall receive; Jesus says that God is a good Father who loves us and gives us good gifts. Yet when we pray, people still die. Yes, I understand the point of prayer is relationship (Young hammers the relationship point to death) and not a cosmic vending machine. Yes, I understand that God gives good gifts, but doesn't always intervene. But when we know God can intervene and does intervene, it makes it hard to understand why certain evils remain while others do not. If that family was blessed with healthy pregancies, why not our family?

Yes indeed, it is about trust and belief. But that becomes hard because humanly we expect trust in a relationship to mean that it benefits us. Utilitarian, I know, but I think it is true. People intentionally build relationships that benefit them. The benefit may be through building community, through learning more about love, through satisfaction in helping others, or in knowing that when hard times hit, I have loving, caring people who will help me. We can't go it alone in this life, we definitely need others, and we fill this need through building relationships. That's not bad, it's God ordained. Yet with God, we ask for protection and don't always get it. We ask for good things, and don't always get them. I do not doubt that in eternity, questions will be answered, we'll see the greater picture, and understand why it all happened the way it did. But here, now, in the midst of pain, that answer fall short, sounds horrible, and seems to suggest that our job in life is to quit asking questions and engage in blind faith. I do not think that The Shack successfully combats this shortfall.

Stolen Identity! Who am I?

No, not really. Only in a virtual sense. Online, I am usually Aquajag. My oldest email address has that, and nearly every game I've played my name has been Aquajag. If you've blown off Aquajag's head, that was me; if you got chopped to pieces by Aquajag, that was me; if you're currently embroiled in an intergalactic war for universal military dominance with Aquajag, that's me. Only when trying to get "aquajag" on MSN or AIM have I had problems. Until, that is, I tried to take "aquajag.blogspot.com" and found that some other dude took it! My Identity! Lost! Who am I?? Now when Agent Smith calls me Mr. Welch (cause inevitably he'll be a moron and not realize that if I'm anything, I'm Mr. Garbat-Welch) I won't be able to say "My Name... is Aquajag!" because some other dude took it. Once, anyways.

But despite that, I insist that I am Aquajag. Even though I'm not aquajag.blogspot, I refuse to let go so easily...

Ramble Ramble Ramble

From time to time (meaning anytime my mind is idle) I find myself pondering things. Arguing in my head, more like. Philosophical, theological, sometimes just plain ornery. I get frustrated not having anyone to bounce back thoughts at me. Maybe this will help? Of course, one problem is that I often find I can't actually put the thoughts down in print. But I'll try. Enjoy, and pull apart my thoughts.