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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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.
Also, feel free to let me know what you think. I'm especially wanting to make sure it stays readable.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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):
I wish they had said:
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 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)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
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...
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...
Friday, February 20, 2009
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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)