I plan on doing a lot more research on this topic this evening for my Erev (Friday Evening) Bible Study, but the following are some thoughts I am trying to organize beforehand. Former American President Ronald Reagan said that "Greed is good," and has been widely lampooned since then. Selfishness is widely considered to be a highly negative quality, and the supposed narcissism of my generation has come under rather undue criticism from Baby Boomers (perhaps the most harmfully selfish generation in the entire existence of planet earth, if environmental scientists and moralists can be believed). Adam Smith stated that we do not trust the generosity of the butcher (or any other merchant) but his self-interest. The research of humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow sought to demonstrate that in certain circumstances selfishness was an act of altruism because benefitting the self also served to benefit others as well. Jesus Christ seemed to indicate the same thing when he stated that those who were not faithful with unrighteous mammon would not be faithful with much either (a paraphrase). The question is therefore: in what circumstances is selfishness good?
At first blush, this question may seem quite proposterous for some people. Many people do not consider selfishness to be positive at all, especially the selfishness of others (all of us are at least a little bit selfish ourselves). When we feel jealous about the success of others, and are insecure about how we are loved and respected, we are behaving selfishly. When we try to hoard money and resources and knowledge for ourselves rather than give them generously, we are also behaving selfishly. Most would agree with me, I suppose, that these types of selfishness would be bad. This is the sort of selfishness that seeks to increase one's own at the expense of other people (through shortchanging them as is common in the actions of businesses towards their salary/pension obligations, tax obligations, and social obligations). No one, save an overly greedy and wicked sort of person, would consider this sort of greed to be good.
What kind of greed is good then? When Adam Smith referred to the self-interest of the butcher (a stand-in for merchants in general, businesspeople who make their living by providing goods and services to paying customers), he seems to be referring to the fact that when a company seeks to meet the highest customer standards at the lowest price, both the customer and business benefit. The customer benefits by having his or her needs and wants fulfilled, and the business benefits by receiving profit on the transaction (as well as the possibility of future profit as satisfied customers tend to be creatures of habit and return to the same businesses over and over again so long as their standards are met). In this case, the selfishness of the merchant (the desire for profit) was benevolent because it served to help the customer as well.
This, then, provides the way out of the false dilemma of selfishness versus generosity and an environment where acting to benefit ourselves benefits others, and acting to benefit others benefits ourselves. This world is what Maslow (and others) would call an enlightened world. In an enlightened world, success, wealth, honor, and love are not zero-sum concepts, where one person must suffer if another benefits. Once an environment becomes synergistic (where gains in one area trigger gains in other places as well, to the benefit of all in the system), then we can gain enjoyment from the good we do to others, and acting for ourselves will serve to benefit others. In these cases selfishness is not a bad thing at all--and it cannot be separated from the benefit we are bringing to others as well. Both generosity and selfishness (taken as personal enjoyment and personal benefit) are intertwined into one.
In order for selfishness to be good, however, we must build an environment where what benefits us benefits others as well, and vice versa. This sort of environment would increase the connections that people have with each other, and would mean the sharing of gains we have with others around us, and vice versa. In such a realm of mutual generosity and love and respect, what benefits one benefits all, and there need not be a hostility or jealousy about the good that happens to others, so long as everyone shares in its benefits. This can be true of families, churches, businesses , and societies, indeed even the whole world. It is only the case, though, when we start from the premise that all human beings are worthwhile and valuable and important simply by being human beings, and that the human beings who are yet to be born are deserving of the same pleasures of this earth that we who now inhabit hte earth are. Such enlightened selfishness is not wicked at all. The question, though, remains: can we behave so righteously ourselves as to make enlightened selfishness possible for ourselves and those around us?
Friday, March 02, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
It Isn't Pretty....
I am often amused by the news stories I read, and yesterday I read a pretty funny one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wrtv/20070227/lo_wrtv/11122828
Apparently, some sorority members in Indiana at DePauw University didn't get the memo that members of sororities are supposed to be attractive. Out of a chapter of 35, only 12 were slender and pretty enough (apparently) to meet the national chapter's rigorous standards. The University is protesting, complaining about the hardship it has caused its students, and is considering requesting the sorority to leave campus. What most concerns me, though, is that some people actually believe that sororities were meant to promote womanhood. Indeed, it appears that the university and many of the sorority members are the ones confused about what sororities (and the Greek system as a whole) is actually about.
Now, I have never been a part of a fraternity (and certainly not a sorority, obviously) myself, but during my time in Los Angeles I lived about half a block north of Fraternity row at the University South Central (as I affectionately called it). Delta Zeta might have been one of the many fraternities and sororities in that area (my old apartment, in fact, had once been the fraternity house for some Pharmacy fraternity). I can't remember, though. It was all Greek to me. I do remember, though, that the Tri Delta Sorority was at the end of our street, and they were widely considered to be one of the most competitive sororities (and had a large number of slender blonde members).
There are basically two types of fraternities/sororities that I saw. Some fraternities (though no sororities) were professional fraternities. The professional fraternities were generally coed, and included Alpha Rho Chi (the Architecture fraternity, where I had many friends), as well as professional fraternities for nursing students, engineers (I had many friends and classmates here as well), and so forth. These fraternities partied, but also had a professional focus that allowed students with similar majors to congregate together. Generally speaking, even as a teetotler I did not have a problem visiting my friends at those houses. Other fraternities like honor fraternities would also fall into this category as well.
The other fraternities and sororities appeared somewhat more sinister to me, however. They were largely filled with rather affluent students in high risk of contracting cirrhosis of the liver and any number of other diseases involved with copious amounts of alcohol consumption and fornication. While claiming to benefit the campus life in general, these societies were made up of people who were often quite arrogant, and unpleasant to be around (especially on Thursday through Saturday nights when msot of the partying went on). The people in this second group of fraternities certainly gained useful connections, but that had more to do with the fact that they were all pretty well off and well-connected already, and were now even better connected.
As far as the sororities go, they had even less credit to their names, as they appeared to be largely populated with young ladies whose slim figures as freshman pledges tended to gain as the years progressed due to poor eating habits and excessive drinking. Sadly, the wardrobe quality of many of these young ladies (though not all) did not tend to improve as they aged. Nurse's uniforms on Halloween remained a consistent tradition on that street during my time there. Indeed, the only way sororities might have promoted womanhood is to provide a place for girls to be around each other without guys around. I don't know if that's a good thing, though.
I don't know, to be honest, what the young ladies at DePauw University expected from their fraternity. Maybe they justed wanted to meet friendly and ambitious young ladies. If so, perhaps they would have been better served joining service clubs or professional clubs rather than a sorority. If your focus is not on the superficial, then there is probably no place for you in Delta Zeta or any number of other sororities. Perhaps being kicked out of the sorority is a good thing--if they are not superficial enough they just may be good enough people that a sorority would do them no good at all. And that is a matter of celebration, rather than mourning. Sometimes being kicked out of a group can be a good thing, after all. That, however, is a subject for another day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wrtv/20070227/lo_wrtv/11122828
Apparently, some sorority members in Indiana at DePauw University didn't get the memo that members of sororities are supposed to be attractive. Out of a chapter of 35, only 12 were slender and pretty enough (apparently) to meet the national chapter's rigorous standards. The University is protesting, complaining about the hardship it has caused its students, and is considering requesting the sorority to leave campus. What most concerns me, though, is that some people actually believe that sororities were meant to promote womanhood. Indeed, it appears that the university and many of the sorority members are the ones confused about what sororities (and the Greek system as a whole) is actually about.
Now, I have never been a part of a fraternity (and certainly not a sorority, obviously) myself, but during my time in Los Angeles I lived about half a block north of Fraternity row at the University South Central (as I affectionately called it). Delta Zeta might have been one of the many fraternities and sororities in that area (my old apartment, in fact, had once been the fraternity house for some Pharmacy fraternity). I can't remember, though. It was all Greek to me. I do remember, though, that the Tri Delta Sorority was at the end of our street, and they were widely considered to be one of the most competitive sororities (and had a large number of slender blonde members).
There are basically two types of fraternities/sororities that I saw. Some fraternities (though no sororities) were professional fraternities. The professional fraternities were generally coed, and included Alpha Rho Chi (the Architecture fraternity, where I had many friends), as well as professional fraternities for nursing students, engineers (I had many friends and classmates here as well), and so forth. These fraternities partied, but also had a professional focus that allowed students with similar majors to congregate together. Generally speaking, even as a teetotler I did not have a problem visiting my friends at those houses. Other fraternities like honor fraternities would also fall into this category as well.
The other fraternities and sororities appeared somewhat more sinister to me, however. They were largely filled with rather affluent students in high risk of contracting cirrhosis of the liver and any number of other diseases involved with copious amounts of alcohol consumption and fornication. While claiming to benefit the campus life in general, these societies were made up of people who were often quite arrogant, and unpleasant to be around (especially on Thursday through Saturday nights when msot of the partying went on). The people in this second group of fraternities certainly gained useful connections, but that had more to do with the fact that they were all pretty well off and well-connected already, and were now even better connected.
As far as the sororities go, they had even less credit to their names, as they appeared to be largely populated with young ladies whose slim figures as freshman pledges tended to gain as the years progressed due to poor eating habits and excessive drinking. Sadly, the wardrobe quality of many of these young ladies (though not all) did not tend to improve as they aged. Nurse's uniforms on Halloween remained a consistent tradition on that street during my time there. Indeed, the only way sororities might have promoted womanhood is to provide a place for girls to be around each other without guys around. I don't know if that's a good thing, though.
I don't know, to be honest, what the young ladies at DePauw University expected from their fraternity. Maybe they justed wanted to meet friendly and ambitious young ladies. If so, perhaps they would have been better served joining service clubs or professional clubs rather than a sorority. If your focus is not on the superficial, then there is probably no place for you in Delta Zeta or any number of other sororities. Perhaps being kicked out of the sorority is a good thing--if they are not superficial enough they just may be good enough people that a sorority would do them no good at all. And that is a matter of celebration, rather than mourning. Sometimes being kicked out of a group can be a good thing, after all. That, however, is a subject for another day.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Profile In Courage
Yesterday I read a fantastic article about a person who has taken a brave stance against corruption by the wealthy and powerful in the rather corrupt nation of Columbia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_uribe_s_nemesis
Anyway, I was most impressed in the article by the courage this particular fellow had to oppose the drug traffickers on the left as well as the paramilitaries/government on the right. It is not an easy thing to antagonize everyone with guns in a nation as violent as Columbia. I am not someone who views Hugo Chavez very highly, so I do not know what to make of the friendship Gustavo Petro has with him, but there is much about his behavior that is admirable and worthwhile. Let us take a few lessons and comment on them.
1. Fight the power.
In today's world, those who hold power at all are generally corrupt, and often threaten those who seek justice and truth. Leaders would rather have those who follow them blinded by idyllic and pleasant false visions than grapple with the truth about what is and how it came to be. In most cases these threats are not all that severe (depending on what sort of authority someone has), but in the case of Señor Petro, he and his family have been threatened with death due to his firm stand against corruption in high places. Then again, as Mr. Petro was tortured by various unpleasant means (including large amounts of beating and dunking) for mostly peaceful protesting, it appears as if he has little fear for himself, and a realistic appraisal of what his resistance means to him and to his long-suffering people.
2. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
When faced with unpleasant accusations, there are a few sorts of defenses that people can make. The best defense is to come clean (preferably on 60 Minutes or some other popular show) and to be honest about one's side of the story, not minimizing what one has done, but putting a less hostile spin on it than was initially presented. Honesty about one's own flaws and foibles gives a lot of credibility when talking about those of others. After all, if we are not honest about ourselves, we are not likely to be honest about others as well. And if we have nothing to hide, those who oppose us should not have anything to hide either. Those, on the other hand, who do have something to hide, cannot bear to have their lives brought into the harsh light of day. Therefore they can choose to either hide their lives all the more and refuse to answer allegations (pretending that such matters are beneath them), or they can attack the person opposing them by slurring, namecalling, and the like. Most of us choose both methods (the odd fellows among us choose all three methods, in a baffling display of inconsistency). The point, though, is that enough independent allegations leads to a prima facie case of wrongdoing, and the refusal to answer becomes an admission of guilt.
3. Never Give Up
Columbia right now is experiencing a massive scandal extending all the way to the presidency thanks to the persistent efforts of Gustavo Petro and other members of the democratic opposition. In steadfastly opposing the paramilitary of the right wing (supported, sadly, by the American government with billions of dollars worth of aid and equipment) and in defending the rights and dignity of an oppressed common folk, Gustavo Petro has demonstrated firm integrity as well as a stubborn refusal to give in. Even where one would disagree with his policies (and I must admit I do not know them very well, except that I would assume human rights, avoidance of corruption, and land reform would be among them), one must respect someone who behaves with integrity and avoids making alliances of convenience with either the paramilitaries/military forces or the leftist guerillas, who between them have all the guns.
So, this blog gives a salute to the bravery and integrity of Gustavo Petro, former guerilla and now muckraking politician. Let there be others as brave and morally upright as you in the struggle against the evil all around us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_uribe_s_nemesis
Anyway, I was most impressed in the article by the courage this particular fellow had to oppose the drug traffickers on the left as well as the paramilitaries/government on the right. It is not an easy thing to antagonize everyone with guns in a nation as violent as Columbia. I am not someone who views Hugo Chavez very highly, so I do not know what to make of the friendship Gustavo Petro has with him, but there is much about his behavior that is admirable and worthwhile. Let us take a few lessons and comment on them.
1. Fight the power.
In today's world, those who hold power at all are generally corrupt, and often threaten those who seek justice and truth. Leaders would rather have those who follow them blinded by idyllic and pleasant false visions than grapple with the truth about what is and how it came to be. In most cases these threats are not all that severe (depending on what sort of authority someone has), but in the case of Señor Petro, he and his family have been threatened with death due to his firm stand against corruption in high places. Then again, as Mr. Petro was tortured by various unpleasant means (including large amounts of beating and dunking) for mostly peaceful protesting, it appears as if he has little fear for himself, and a realistic appraisal of what his resistance means to him and to his long-suffering people.
2. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
When faced with unpleasant accusations, there are a few sorts of defenses that people can make. The best defense is to come clean (preferably on 60 Minutes or some other popular show) and to be honest about one's side of the story, not minimizing what one has done, but putting a less hostile spin on it than was initially presented. Honesty about one's own flaws and foibles gives a lot of credibility when talking about those of others. After all, if we are not honest about ourselves, we are not likely to be honest about others as well. And if we have nothing to hide, those who oppose us should not have anything to hide either. Those, on the other hand, who do have something to hide, cannot bear to have their lives brought into the harsh light of day. Therefore they can choose to either hide their lives all the more and refuse to answer allegations (pretending that such matters are beneath them), or they can attack the person opposing them by slurring, namecalling, and the like. Most of us choose both methods (the odd fellows among us choose all three methods, in a baffling display of inconsistency). The point, though, is that enough independent allegations leads to a prima facie case of wrongdoing, and the refusal to answer becomes an admission of guilt.
3. Never Give Up
Columbia right now is experiencing a massive scandal extending all the way to the presidency thanks to the persistent efforts of Gustavo Petro and other members of the democratic opposition. In steadfastly opposing the paramilitary of the right wing (supported, sadly, by the American government with billions of dollars worth of aid and equipment) and in defending the rights and dignity of an oppressed common folk, Gustavo Petro has demonstrated firm integrity as well as a stubborn refusal to give in. Even where one would disagree with his policies (and I must admit I do not know them very well, except that I would assume human rights, avoidance of corruption, and land reform would be among them), one must respect someone who behaves with integrity and avoids making alliances of convenience with either the paramilitaries/military forces or the leftist guerillas, who between them have all the guns.
So, this blog gives a salute to the bravery and integrity of Gustavo Petro, former guerilla and now muckraking politician. Let there be others as brave and morally upright as you in the struggle against the evil all around us.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Keep Them Separated
Now, I get a lot of e-mails that I find vaguely irritating, and most of them I simply delete. However, some of them (see the Nigerian e-mail scam blog entry) become blogger-worthy rants. Some time ago (to be exact, it was February 11th), I received an e-mail that I get regularly that is supposedly written by someone I know a little bit (and know greater by reputation, as he is the President of the church I generally attend). The e-mail irritated me because it was highly simplistic and purported to add accuracy to thinking when in reality it did no such thing.
There were six "separations" that the author stated were useful in organizing what is learned. Each of these six is worthy of comment:
1. Separate the facts from mere information.
Well, in case someone has failed to consult the dictionary, information and facts are highly related. In fact (no pun intended), information is facts that are collected and from which conclusions may be drawn. Therefore if this statement were to be accurate, it should be stated: separate information from mere facts. However, even in this form the statement is unhelpful, as the diligent collection of facts to form information is quite useful in honing one's intellectual abilities. Here is one example where separation is of no help whatsoever, because having the facts together to form information, and then utilizing the information to form knowledge and then wisdom is a fundamental process in sharpening one's own intellect. Only a moron would seek to separate people from the process to developing independent thinking.
2. Separate the truth from idle gossip.
This separation principle is also unhelpful. What is truth to someone is idle gossip to someone else, and vice versa. In order for this principle to be helpful, there must be clear boundaries as to what is considered truth and what is gossip. Indeed, gossip need not be untrue. Do we trust the word of others on reputation without supporting evidence and logical presentation? If so, then even if that person is a minister or politician or boss, or other leader, then we are accepting gossip rather than truth. Determining the truth can be a very unpleasant task, and oftentimes it can only be gathered through a close understanding of gossip, as the dark truths may be impolitic to say out in the open. In this way, one may need to have a close ear to gossip in order to understand the truth.
3. Separate the good from the bad.
Again, it appears as if this principle is entirely useless if one wants to live a life in truth. The truth is the honest and unvarnished knowledge of ourselves and our world, and those around us, and that can either be good or bad. Separating out the good from the bad to focus on either in isolation does us no good in finding the balance of matters. If we focus only on the good, we become blind to the dark evil inside of ourselves and others, particularly those who do not like to deal with unpleasant truths. If we focus only on the bad and not the good, then our lives become darkened because we do not see that there is good in this world (even if there is not as much of it as we would like). If we surround ourselves with darkness, we cannot help but be corrupted by it. But if we do not deal with darkness at all we lack understanding of our world and ourselves, and cannot truly repent of who we are.
4. Separate the important from the unimportant.
This principle would be helpful if one could tell what was important and unimportant. And a further question needs to be dealt with: important to whom? If we separate matters based on what is important to us, we become rather selfish and self-centered, and that is certainly not a godly way to be. We do not always know what is important to God, though where we do know this we have an obligation to act accordingly. However, while it may be unimportant to us to play ball with our children (if we have any) in the yard, such matters may be very important to our children, as they are a sign of love and consideration. Again, unless one has defined what is important correctly, it appears that this principle is an invitation to selfishness.
5. Separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
Again, it appears as if this is an unhelpful principle of separation. What is not relevant in a particular situation may be very relevant in another situation. Also, if we have already separated the good and the bad (see above), then we may be missing very relevant information to a situation, especially if it involves the unpleasant reactions people have to certain situations. Unless we are sensitive to where people are coming from, and what background they have, we can often make little sense of their behavior, and this is certainly not going to improve our lives. Ignorance is not bliss, even if knowledge is seldom blissful as well.
6. Separate the usable from the unusable.
Again, it seems as if this principle is not a helpful one if written large. While in any given situation one may have to parce out information that can be used now from what cannot, over the long term there might be vastly more information that is usable, and if that information is lost then future decisions may be imparied by a lack of knowledge. If this author wishes to give wise advice for wise decisions, he ought to be vastly more informative and precise than he is in these rather overly simplistic maxims.
Oh, and I have class now, so I guess it is time to /rant, for now. I have another one to come if time permits later on.
There were six "separations" that the author stated were useful in organizing what is learned. Each of these six is worthy of comment:
1. Separate the facts from mere information.
Well, in case someone has failed to consult the dictionary, information and facts are highly related. In fact (no pun intended), information is facts that are collected and from which conclusions may be drawn. Therefore if this statement were to be accurate, it should be stated: separate information from mere facts. However, even in this form the statement is unhelpful, as the diligent collection of facts to form information is quite useful in honing one's intellectual abilities. Here is one example where separation is of no help whatsoever, because having the facts together to form information, and then utilizing the information to form knowledge and then wisdom is a fundamental process in sharpening one's own intellect. Only a moron would seek to separate people from the process to developing independent thinking.
2. Separate the truth from idle gossip.
This separation principle is also unhelpful. What is truth to someone is idle gossip to someone else, and vice versa. In order for this principle to be helpful, there must be clear boundaries as to what is considered truth and what is gossip. Indeed, gossip need not be untrue. Do we trust the word of others on reputation without supporting evidence and logical presentation? If so, then even if that person is a minister or politician or boss, or other leader, then we are accepting gossip rather than truth. Determining the truth can be a very unpleasant task, and oftentimes it can only be gathered through a close understanding of gossip, as the dark truths may be impolitic to say out in the open. In this way, one may need to have a close ear to gossip in order to understand the truth.
3. Separate the good from the bad.
Again, it appears as if this principle is entirely useless if one wants to live a life in truth. The truth is the honest and unvarnished knowledge of ourselves and our world, and those around us, and that can either be good or bad. Separating out the good from the bad to focus on either in isolation does us no good in finding the balance of matters. If we focus only on the good, we become blind to the dark evil inside of ourselves and others, particularly those who do not like to deal with unpleasant truths. If we focus only on the bad and not the good, then our lives become darkened because we do not see that there is good in this world (even if there is not as much of it as we would like). If we surround ourselves with darkness, we cannot help but be corrupted by it. But if we do not deal with darkness at all we lack understanding of our world and ourselves, and cannot truly repent of who we are.
4. Separate the important from the unimportant.
This principle would be helpful if one could tell what was important and unimportant. And a further question needs to be dealt with: important to whom? If we separate matters based on what is important to us, we become rather selfish and self-centered, and that is certainly not a godly way to be. We do not always know what is important to God, though where we do know this we have an obligation to act accordingly. However, while it may be unimportant to us to play ball with our children (if we have any) in the yard, such matters may be very important to our children, as they are a sign of love and consideration. Again, unless one has defined what is important correctly, it appears that this principle is an invitation to selfishness.
5. Separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
Again, it appears as if this is an unhelpful principle of separation. What is not relevant in a particular situation may be very relevant in another situation. Also, if we have already separated the good and the bad (see above), then we may be missing very relevant information to a situation, especially if it involves the unpleasant reactions people have to certain situations. Unless we are sensitive to where people are coming from, and what background they have, we can often make little sense of their behavior, and this is certainly not going to improve our lives. Ignorance is not bliss, even if knowledge is seldom blissful as well.
6. Separate the usable from the unusable.
Again, it seems as if this principle is not a helpful one if written large. While in any given situation one may have to parce out information that can be used now from what cannot, over the long term there might be vastly more information that is usable, and if that information is lost then future decisions may be imparied by a lack of knowledge. If this author wishes to give wise advice for wise decisions, he ought to be vastly more informative and precise than he is in these rather overly simplistic maxims.
Oh, and I have class now, so I guess it is time to /rant, for now. I have another one to come if time permits later on.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Fifteen Points
In 1939, a noted religious who founded one of the largest Sabbatarian Christian organizations and whose influence (for good and ill) has spread far and wide throughout the world in many religious organizations to this day made the following fifteen points. I will list them here and comment on each of the points.
1) The assembly is not an institution or an organization, but a society of believers.
This is quite true. While a religious organization can be useful, even necessary, to act in these rather over-regulated times, one must never confuse an organization, which is a business entity meant to fulfill legal obligations (usually involving tax law) with the assembly of believers (the actual "Church of God"), which forms a spiritual organism rather than a physical organization. This spiritual organism (which the NT authors, in particular Paul, were fond of comparing to a body) may include members in a variety of organizations (or none at all) and includes those who have been called at all times, and those who are yet to be called into the family of God. It is obvious that such an entity cannot ever be contained within one physical organization.
2) The church is not hierarchical, that is, in descending order of minister, elders, deacons, male laity, male children, women, and female children.
This point should go without saying. The offices of the Church of God (see Acts, Ephesians, Titus, etc.) are not ordered in a hierarchial form, but are rather defined in a functional manner depending on the various gifts that God gives us. While each of us has some gifts in excess of the usual (whether teaching or organizational skills or language and so forth), all of us, regardless of supposed rank, are to develop our spiritual skills in all areas to the best of our abilities as we seek to become like God. Even our savior Himself did not place Himself on a hierarchy above us. Jesus considers Himself our elder brother, and elder brothers are not to lord it over younger brothers. Rather, they seek to lead their younger siblings by example in a spirit of loving service and gentle instruction. If Jesus Christ does not lord it over us (when he could claim the right to do so), then no human leaders can justify a hierarchial society.
3) The Christian's relationship to the church is organic, not organizational.
See commentary to point #1 above. The Bible is consistent in treating the church as a body of believers (both in the sense of an organism and in the sense of an assembly), rather than in the organizational and beaurocratic terms which our benighted generation is so fond of. This is plain to any who open the Bible and read it with eyes open.
4) The church has no office and elects no officer.
Properly speaking, religion is an avocation not a vocation (thanks Mr. Ed for the lively commentary on that difference). Just as the rabbis in the first century were trained for a trade as well as their religious instruction, those who serve congregations were not intended to do so for filthy lucre. Paul himself, for example, refused to take monetary support from congregations when it became a problem (such as in Corinth), an example that few today seem to follow. It is sad that many today who draw salaries for religious service are unqualified for any other gainful (read: professional) employment. This should not be. In addition, the Church of God (as it is an organism rather than an organization) cannot elect an officer. For one, Jesus alone is head of the church, and any who would usurp Him have a lot to answer for. For another, those officers chosen in an organization are not done often for godly reasons, and are entirely lacking in a spiritual matter, simply existing for the good of the members and not reflecting any great spiritual understanding or excellence. When the first seven deacons were chosen by the early Church, it was for the purpose of serving the needs of the brethren in the collection to allow the apostles to spend their time preaching rather than waiting on tables. Such a position did not signify that the said deacons were in any way superior to others, but they were placed in responsibilty due to their prior reputation for diligence and reliability and faithful honesty.
5) Elders and deacons are not officers.
This is true (see above) because elders and deacons are servants and not masters.
6) There is no such thing as "instant elders" created by official act. In the pursuit of the Christian vocation members become elders as a matter of growth and maturity.
Those who have been ordained elders without demonstrating the proper wisdom and moral excellence for their position (not an easy task) bring discredit on many others.
7) Elders are not "over the church" and members are not "under the elders."
This should go without saying. The Bible (see 1 Peter 5 and elsewhere) teaches mutual submission, as everyone is to respect and honor everyone else, rather than behave as baboons do in a dominance-subodination hierarchy.
8) Overseers are "in" and "among" rather than over the assembly.
Again, this is an obvious point given the biblical doctrine of mutual accountability.
9) Overseeing does not involve control and carries no authority -- that is, the power to rule and to decide.
Overseeing is a responsibility for the benefit of the members, rather than a position of authority over the members.
10) "Elders" are simply senior members, male and female, who have matured through years of service. Ideally, there should be as many elders as there are older members, with no case of arrested growth.
This is quite true, although sadly this is not the case because there are vast majority of elders in age who through arrested growth are not cable of mature service but who still require milk and not meat.
11) "Deacons" is simply a generic term describing members, male and female, who serve. In New Testament times deacons ranged from apostles to lower members.
Again, this is quite true. A deacon was a word for a servant or waiter (for waiters then and now are servants who bring us food--whether spiritual or physical). The prominent leaders of the NT church (see Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.) were fond of calling themselves the servant or slave of Christ, which meant that they were the servants and slaves of the members as a whole. Many early church leaders were literal slaves as well, from early histories, and our current church leaders are so in at least a metaphorical sense.
12) Deacons in the church do not constitute a special class or have a special rank, or do any special work. They are merely servants devoted to the life of the Christian community.
This is obvious given the example of such servants in Acts and elsewhere in the Bible. However, as we are wicked and desire rank and position for ourselves, like the carnal 12 disciples before the death of Christ, we have twisted this into a base and false hierarchy.
13) Permission of elders is not required before anyone may engage in any Christian work or share in the activities of the church. Denying a member any active participation in prayers, songs, teaching, or exhortation is a gross usurpation of power contrary to the Bible.
No comment.
14) No man or group of men has any authority in the church by virtue of office which does not belong to other members.
Amen, and amen.
15) Nothing shall be done which affects the whole church without every member being heard before the decision is made. The quorum necessary for any action by the church is the entire membership. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur-- "What touches all, is to be approved by all." This is not a matter of passive assent or silence, but the result of active participation.
This is correct, and it is regrettable that many decisions are not made in the light of day, but rather in darkness and secrecy. Kudos to those leaders who seek not only the passive acceptance but the active participation of their brethren, and follow the example of the early church (read Acts 15 for a particularly enlightening account of a conference were apostles, elders, deacons, and members (all discussing as equals) came to agreement on what could have been a violent confrontation).
When I read these fifteen points, I shake my head and wonder how we wandered so far into the darkness when the truth was there in the light all along.
1) The assembly is not an institution or an organization, but a society of believers.
This is quite true. While a religious organization can be useful, even necessary, to act in these rather over-regulated times, one must never confuse an organization, which is a business entity meant to fulfill legal obligations (usually involving tax law) with the assembly of believers (the actual "Church of God"), which forms a spiritual organism rather than a physical organization. This spiritual organism (which the NT authors, in particular Paul, were fond of comparing to a body) may include members in a variety of organizations (or none at all) and includes those who have been called at all times, and those who are yet to be called into the family of God. It is obvious that such an entity cannot ever be contained within one physical organization.
2) The church is not hierarchical, that is, in descending order of minister, elders, deacons, male laity, male children, women, and female children.
This point should go without saying. The offices of the Church of God (see Acts, Ephesians, Titus, etc.) are not ordered in a hierarchial form, but are rather defined in a functional manner depending on the various gifts that God gives us. While each of us has some gifts in excess of the usual (whether teaching or organizational skills or language and so forth), all of us, regardless of supposed rank, are to develop our spiritual skills in all areas to the best of our abilities as we seek to become like God. Even our savior Himself did not place Himself on a hierarchy above us. Jesus considers Himself our elder brother, and elder brothers are not to lord it over younger brothers. Rather, they seek to lead their younger siblings by example in a spirit of loving service and gentle instruction. If Jesus Christ does not lord it over us (when he could claim the right to do so), then no human leaders can justify a hierarchial society.
3) The Christian's relationship to the church is organic, not organizational.
See commentary to point #1 above. The Bible is consistent in treating the church as a body of believers (both in the sense of an organism and in the sense of an assembly), rather than in the organizational and beaurocratic terms which our benighted generation is so fond of. This is plain to any who open the Bible and read it with eyes open.
4) The church has no office and elects no officer.
Properly speaking, religion is an avocation not a vocation (thanks Mr. Ed for the lively commentary on that difference). Just as the rabbis in the first century were trained for a trade as well as their religious instruction, those who serve congregations were not intended to do so for filthy lucre. Paul himself, for example, refused to take monetary support from congregations when it became a problem (such as in Corinth), an example that few today seem to follow. It is sad that many today who draw salaries for religious service are unqualified for any other gainful (read: professional) employment. This should not be. In addition, the Church of God (as it is an organism rather than an organization) cannot elect an officer. For one, Jesus alone is head of the church, and any who would usurp Him have a lot to answer for. For another, those officers chosen in an organization are not done often for godly reasons, and are entirely lacking in a spiritual matter, simply existing for the good of the members and not reflecting any great spiritual understanding or excellence. When the first seven deacons were chosen by the early Church, it was for the purpose of serving the needs of the brethren in the collection to allow the apostles to spend their time preaching rather than waiting on tables. Such a position did not signify that the said deacons were in any way superior to others, but they were placed in responsibilty due to their prior reputation for diligence and reliability and faithful honesty.
5) Elders and deacons are not officers.
This is true (see above) because elders and deacons are servants and not masters.
6) There is no such thing as "instant elders" created by official act. In the pursuit of the Christian vocation members become elders as a matter of growth and maturity.
Those who have been ordained elders without demonstrating the proper wisdom and moral excellence for their position (not an easy task) bring discredit on many others.
7) Elders are not "over the church" and members are not "under the elders."
This should go without saying. The Bible (see 1 Peter 5 and elsewhere) teaches mutual submission, as everyone is to respect and honor everyone else, rather than behave as baboons do in a dominance-subodination hierarchy.
8) Overseers are "in" and "among" rather than over the assembly.
Again, this is an obvious point given the biblical doctrine of mutual accountability.
9) Overseeing does not involve control and carries no authority -- that is, the power to rule and to decide.
Overseeing is a responsibility for the benefit of the members, rather than a position of authority over the members.
10) "Elders" are simply senior members, male and female, who have matured through years of service. Ideally, there should be as many elders as there are older members, with no case of arrested growth.
This is quite true, although sadly this is not the case because there are vast majority of elders in age who through arrested growth are not cable of mature service but who still require milk and not meat.
11) "Deacons" is simply a generic term describing members, male and female, who serve. In New Testament times deacons ranged from apostles to lower members.
Again, this is quite true. A deacon was a word for a servant or waiter (for waiters then and now are servants who bring us food--whether spiritual or physical). The prominent leaders of the NT church (see Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.) were fond of calling themselves the servant or slave of Christ, which meant that they were the servants and slaves of the members as a whole. Many early church leaders were literal slaves as well, from early histories, and our current church leaders are so in at least a metaphorical sense.
12) Deacons in the church do not constitute a special class or have a special rank, or do any special work. They are merely servants devoted to the life of the Christian community.
This is obvious given the example of such servants in Acts and elsewhere in the Bible. However, as we are wicked and desire rank and position for ourselves, like the carnal 12 disciples before the death of Christ, we have twisted this into a base and false hierarchy.
13) Permission of elders is not required before anyone may engage in any Christian work or share in the activities of the church. Denying a member any active participation in prayers, songs, teaching, or exhortation is a gross usurpation of power contrary to the Bible.
No comment.
14) No man or group of men has any authority in the church by virtue of office which does not belong to other members.
Amen, and amen.
15) Nothing shall be done which affects the whole church without every member being heard before the decision is made. The quorum necessary for any action by the church is the entire membership. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur-- "What touches all, is to be approved by all." This is not a matter of passive assent or silence, but the result of active participation.
This is correct, and it is regrettable that many decisions are not made in the light of day, but rather in darkness and secrecy. Kudos to those leaders who seek not only the passive acceptance but the active participation of their brethren, and follow the example of the early church (read Acts 15 for a particularly enlightening account of a conference were apostles, elders, deacons, and members (all discussing as equals) came to agreement on what could have been a violent confrontation).
When I read these fifteen points, I shake my head and wonder how we wandered so far into the darkness when the truth was there in the light all along.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Ghosts In The Machine
Today the former Finnish president outlined his plan for the quasi-independence for the area of Kossovo, but it appears that (as is usual with such compromises) neither side is particularly happy. I'm sure that while NATO and the EU (and the UN) have bigger concerns than being the custodians of the downfall of the Serbian Empire (started just before WWI and reaching its largest size after WWII), it appears that for the second time in less than a year that a seemingly integral area of the Serbian empire is seeking its independence to follow the other former Yugoslav republics (Slovenia, already in the EU, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and new nation Montenegro as well). The compromise outlined by the UN would give Kossovo access to international organizations (like the UN and the IMF) and give it its own flag and control over its own international relations. It would, however, give great rights to the Serbian minority, including municipal control in its own area and the right to accept transparent transfers of money (i.e. subisides) from Serbia.
Unfortunately, as these matters seem to go, the Kossovar Albanians (who have 90% of the population) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with anything short of full independence. They see (rightly) that their own rights to self-determination are being shortchanged to benefit a bullying and abusive nation (Serbia) and its large and morally corrupt ally (Russia, who dislikes the precedent of Kossovo applying to, say, Chechnya and other areas that wish to break off from Russia). The Serbians, on the other hand, see Kossovo as an integral part of their empire, for Kossovo was the core of the Serbian empire until the 1300's, and the Battle of Kossovo in 1389 (a complete defeat that led to Ottoman rule over the Serbs until the 1800's) remains a pivotal event in Serbian history. No Serbian politician wants to go down in infamy as the person who surrendered Kossovo. Serbs have a long memory, and no one wants that eternal infamy.
So while one people seeks justice and the other remains tied to its own dark memories, it appears that neither side is to be happy with this deal, as it does point to independence for Kossovo, but without the status that the Albanians crave and the Serbs fear. The fact that Kossovo is currently a nation with a 50% unemployment rate, with aid (and expenditure by expatriates) accounting for some 30% of its Gross National Product, and with entrenched drug trafficking, prostitution, and copyright infringing interests (obviously not a good thing) makes the situation even more sticky. However, as development aid cannot enter the nation until its status is determined (being a UN Protectorate does not account for much), it appears that Kossovo will be granted near-independence soon, whether the Serbs like it or not. The demands of justice trump the bonds of memory.
Unfortunately, as these matters seem to go, the Kossovar Albanians (who have 90% of the population) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with anything short of full independence. They see (rightly) that their own rights to self-determination are being shortchanged to benefit a bullying and abusive nation (Serbia) and its large and morally corrupt ally (Russia, who dislikes the precedent of Kossovo applying to, say, Chechnya and other areas that wish to break off from Russia). The Serbians, on the other hand, see Kossovo as an integral part of their empire, for Kossovo was the core of the Serbian empire until the 1300's, and the Battle of Kossovo in 1389 (a complete defeat that led to Ottoman rule over the Serbs until the 1800's) remains a pivotal event in Serbian history. No Serbian politician wants to go down in infamy as the person who surrendered Kossovo. Serbs have a long memory, and no one wants that eternal infamy.
So while one people seeks justice and the other remains tied to its own dark memories, it appears that neither side is to be happy with this deal, as it does point to independence for Kossovo, but without the status that the Albanians crave and the Serbs fear. The fact that Kossovo is currently a nation with a 50% unemployment rate, with aid (and expenditure by expatriates) accounting for some 30% of its Gross National Product, and with entrenched drug trafficking, prostitution, and copyright infringing interests (obviously not a good thing) makes the situation even more sticky. However, as development aid cannot enter the nation until its status is determined (being a UN Protectorate does not account for much), it appears that Kossovo will be granted near-independence soon, whether the Serbs like it or not. The demands of justice trump the bonds of memory.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Banned In China
A few months ago I was speaking with an acquaintance from China, and she could not see this particular blog. From my reading about China's rather thorough attempts at blocking certain types of internet sites (mainly those that are deemed politically threatening), I saw with amusement that my own blog had fallen afoul of the Chinese censors, which means I must be saying something right, even though China has never been a particular blogworthy subject to me (with the exception of this anecdone, of course). Apparently some poor civil servant (hopefully proficient in English) read the subject matter of my blogs and assumed (correctly) that I am not a particular fan of China's government and that those reading my blog might be exposed to a bit too much free and loose discussion about government and tyranny than is politically expedient. The refusal to deal with dissent is a hallmark of authoritarian and insecure people and governments and organizations. This amusing incident, though, deals with another subject of great interest to me, and that is knowledge. In particular, I have a saying (in snappy Geneva Bible English, no less) that would apply to this situation, and probably many others:
Know thyself.
Know thy friends.
Know thine enemies.
Know the difference.
"Know Thyself."
As Sun-Tzu wisely said many years ago, someone who knows neither themselves nor others will lose every battle, someone who knows themselves and others will win every battle, and those who know either but not the other will win some and lose some. The Bible says, even more authoritatively, "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free." While the extent our knowledge is not something to boast about (but rather an opportunity to help teach others), knowledge is a matter of supreme spiritual importance. Knowledge is the foundation of conduct and attitude. Our experiences and knowledge greatly influence us, and if that knowledge is incorrect, our lives will be built on faulty premises and our behavior will not be pleasing to God, or beneficial to ourselve sand others. We must know ourselves before we can begin to change our ways. All human beings in their natural state belong to the "vicious" state or morality. Before we can move from that we must be aware of what is often called our human depravity (a rather unpleasant term), or the mix of good and evil in our "human nature." A true and accurate knowledge of ourselves will demonstrate that we have gifts and abilities as well as struggles and problems. Such a balanced and accurate self-knowledge (admittedly difficult to obtain) will show that we have worth in the eyes of God (and, hopefully, ourselves and others) but that we are not perfect, and because we all struggle we can sympathize with others who struggle without falling into self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Likewise, if we do not know ourselves well, we may behave in ways that are mysterious to us (and others) and may behave in ways that are at cross purposes with what we really want (but may be unaware of or too afraid to admit) and what is best for us. The price of ignorance can be very steep, even if knowing the truth is not always pleasant.
"Know Thy Friends"
It is a difficult thing for anyone to know who is truly on their side. Some people are prone to falsely believing that everyone is their friend, simply because they are nice and most people are nice to them. While we all have many acquaintances, most of these people we enjoy chatting with on occasion and spending occasional time with share with us rather superficial relationships. We may enjoy the same kind of movies, games, books, music, we may go to church together, or be members of the same family, but not share any particular deep personal bond, even if we have no particular problems with each other. Such a wide circle of acquaintances may help us find people to talk to, but do not really help with the need we have for emotional intimacy (even on a platonic level). A friend is someone who knows us inside and out, good and bad, and loves us anyway. Some people never (or with extreme difficulty) let people get that close to them, and so they therefore have few friends. If we are a friend to others, the people we know have to open themselves up to us as well, and we need to be worthy of that trust if we do not wish to inflict great pain and suffering on them (and there is enough pain and suffering in this world already without us adding to it). The sort of intimacy that comes from knowing friends and being so close with friends can be dangerous, though, if we choose our friends unwisely. Our loyalty to friends can put us in difficult dilemmas if our friends are invovled in matters they should not be. Proverbs, for example, and other places, are particularly prescient on the need to be careful how we choose our friends. Our friends say a lot about who we are.
"Know Thine Enemies"
We all have enemies. Some enemies are those who disagree with us without being disagreeable. These disagreements, as they are not the cause of personal disrespect, can lead to a sharpening of ideas, and an understanding that different background and experience (as well as a different situation in life) can lead to very different positions that need not be defended with hostility. What is best for us may not be good for others, and vice versa, and knowing this does not need to be entirely unpleasant. It is possible to be the best of enemies with someone, respecting even with strenuous disagreement. Most of the time, though, what is meant by enemies are those who not only disagree with us, but actively oppose us to such an extent that even harmonious opposition is impossible. With such enemies, respect may be impossible, and the need to defend from enemies and attack them may feel overwelming. In such occasions it is difficult to admit when someone who is our enemy may be right (just as it would be difficult for those who are your enemies to admit that you are right). However, being able to recognize what is correct about enemies not only helps us to avoid a Pogo situation ("We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us") but also may give us an advantage if we retain some semblance of rationality while our enemies do not.
"Know The Difference"
We must, at all times, know the difference between ourselves and our friends and our enemies. We may not share the same motives as anyone else, and even when we agree with our friends we may do so for different reasons. Likewise, the reasons we may be enemies with someone may be a matter of mutual disrespect (rather than any fundamental difference of opinion) or may be a matter of difference of opinion without any personal dislike. Or, worst of all, it may be both. Knowing how we are different from our friends would mean we have to know them and be able to explain ourselves (at least somewhat) in their language, if that is possible. The same is true with our enemies. In a best case scenario, we would have a baseline respect for everyone, simply because we are all human beings created in the image of God, but in practical terms not respecting someone as much as they think they ought to be respected is considered disrespect.
Knowledge is not the be-all and end all of our lives, but it is the essential beginning to living a worthwhile life. We cannot hope to live a worthwhile life until and unless our life reflects an accurate knowledge of ourselves and others. As someone once wisely said, if our lives are not in accordance with reality, reality will work against us. If that means your posts get banned in China, that is a small price to pay.
Know thyself.
Know thy friends.
Know thine enemies.
Know the difference.
"Know Thyself."
As Sun-Tzu wisely said many years ago, someone who knows neither themselves nor others will lose every battle, someone who knows themselves and others will win every battle, and those who know either but not the other will win some and lose some. The Bible says, even more authoritatively, "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free." While the extent our knowledge is not something to boast about (but rather an opportunity to help teach others), knowledge is a matter of supreme spiritual importance. Knowledge is the foundation of conduct and attitude. Our experiences and knowledge greatly influence us, and if that knowledge is incorrect, our lives will be built on faulty premises and our behavior will not be pleasing to God, or beneficial to ourselve sand others. We must know ourselves before we can begin to change our ways. All human beings in their natural state belong to the "vicious" state or morality. Before we can move from that we must be aware of what is often called our human depravity (a rather unpleasant term), or the mix of good and evil in our "human nature." A true and accurate knowledge of ourselves will demonstrate that we have gifts and abilities as well as struggles and problems. Such a balanced and accurate self-knowledge (admittedly difficult to obtain) will show that we have worth in the eyes of God (and, hopefully, ourselves and others) but that we are not perfect, and because we all struggle we can sympathize with others who struggle without falling into self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Likewise, if we do not know ourselves well, we may behave in ways that are mysterious to us (and others) and may behave in ways that are at cross purposes with what we really want (but may be unaware of or too afraid to admit) and what is best for us. The price of ignorance can be very steep, even if knowing the truth is not always pleasant.
"Know Thy Friends"
It is a difficult thing for anyone to know who is truly on their side. Some people are prone to falsely believing that everyone is their friend, simply because they are nice and most people are nice to them. While we all have many acquaintances, most of these people we enjoy chatting with on occasion and spending occasional time with share with us rather superficial relationships. We may enjoy the same kind of movies, games, books, music, we may go to church together, or be members of the same family, but not share any particular deep personal bond, even if we have no particular problems with each other. Such a wide circle of acquaintances may help us find people to talk to, but do not really help with the need we have for emotional intimacy (even on a platonic level). A friend is someone who knows us inside and out, good and bad, and loves us anyway. Some people never (or with extreme difficulty) let people get that close to them, and so they therefore have few friends. If we are a friend to others, the people we know have to open themselves up to us as well, and we need to be worthy of that trust if we do not wish to inflict great pain and suffering on them (and there is enough pain and suffering in this world already without us adding to it). The sort of intimacy that comes from knowing friends and being so close with friends can be dangerous, though, if we choose our friends unwisely. Our loyalty to friends can put us in difficult dilemmas if our friends are invovled in matters they should not be. Proverbs, for example, and other places, are particularly prescient on the need to be careful how we choose our friends. Our friends say a lot about who we are.
"Know Thine Enemies"
We all have enemies. Some enemies are those who disagree with us without being disagreeable. These disagreements, as they are not the cause of personal disrespect, can lead to a sharpening of ideas, and an understanding that different background and experience (as well as a different situation in life) can lead to very different positions that need not be defended with hostility. What is best for us may not be good for others, and vice versa, and knowing this does not need to be entirely unpleasant. It is possible to be the best of enemies with someone, respecting even with strenuous disagreement. Most of the time, though, what is meant by enemies are those who not only disagree with us, but actively oppose us to such an extent that even harmonious opposition is impossible. With such enemies, respect may be impossible, and the need to defend from enemies and attack them may feel overwelming. In such occasions it is difficult to admit when someone who is our enemy may be right (just as it would be difficult for those who are your enemies to admit that you are right). However, being able to recognize what is correct about enemies not only helps us to avoid a Pogo situation ("We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us") but also may give us an advantage if we retain some semblance of rationality while our enemies do not.
"Know The Difference"
We must, at all times, know the difference between ourselves and our friends and our enemies. We may not share the same motives as anyone else, and even when we agree with our friends we may do so for different reasons. Likewise, the reasons we may be enemies with someone may be a matter of mutual disrespect (rather than any fundamental difference of opinion) or may be a matter of difference of opinion without any personal dislike. Or, worst of all, it may be both. Knowing how we are different from our friends would mean we have to know them and be able to explain ourselves (at least somewhat) in their language, if that is possible. The same is true with our enemies. In a best case scenario, we would have a baseline respect for everyone, simply because we are all human beings created in the image of God, but in practical terms not respecting someone as much as they think they ought to be respected is considered disrespect.
Knowledge is not the be-all and end all of our lives, but it is the essential beginning to living a worthwhile life. We cannot hope to live a worthwhile life until and unless our life reflects an accurate knowledge of ourselves and others. As someone once wisely said, if our lives are not in accordance with reality, reality will work against us. If that means your posts get banned in China, that is a small price to pay.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
Yesterday, former Chilean dictator and tyrant General Augustin Pinochet died of a heart attack. The reaction to his death was a mixed one in what remains a somewhat divided nation some thirty-three years after he took power in a US-supported coup against an ineffective and highly socialist leader (President Allende, whose neice Isabelle writes some terrible dreck for novels, including one this writer had to read during high school). He then instituted a reign of terror against leftists (particularly young ones) who disappeared, and were presumably tortured and slain. Even after he gave up power to give Chile a fragile (but so far well-functioning) democracy, he still had immunity from facing justice in this life for his serious crimes against humanity. Despite some attempts by Spain and England earlier to bring him to justice, he remained unconvincted despite his serious wrongs.
So now he is dead, and can no longer face justice in this world. The result of his death was a mixture of cheering and mourning, of riots against Chile's recent attempts to try the aged Pinochet for his crimes, cheering people who claim (in a news article I read on it) to love Pinochet like they love their own children, and mourning people who feel as if the opportunity for justice has been taken from them. We live in an unjust world (and some of us have a more intimate and personal understanding of this than others, and some of us understand the injustice in different ways because of our own different personal experience). This world has always been unjust, and as long as humans govern I do not have hope that it will ever be entirely just, though I would hope for it to be a good deal more just than it is now. The world was probably more unjust in the past than it is now, but there is greater dissatisfaction at justice now than before, and injustices people used to get away with without comment now bring harsh condemnation (from people like myself, often).
There are two ways of viewing this growing dissatisfaction with the injustice of this world. One view, largely a holdover from wicked days in which leaders ruled harshly without accountability for their often wicked actions, considers leaders to be some kind of divinely ordained power figures who are only answerable to God and not to mere mortals (especially cranky and somewhat mistrusting mortals like myself). Simply because leaders behaved this way through much of the course of human history (and because of the undeniable appeal of leading when one does not have to answer to the hoi polloi, that is, the common folk) this still appeals in politically backwards and ungodly leadership models.
The other way of viewing this problem is the one I hold. In the two millenia since Jesus Christ came to this earth certain evils which were tolerated in times of old have become less tenable. Slavery, which was a "necessary" evil in the times of Paul (see Philemon) gradually became morally untenable as the commands to love slaves as brethren increasingly meant (as it was intended to originally) that one should not have slaves at all. The same is true with polygamy as being against the biblical mutual respect of men and women and the understanding that a man and a woman become one in marriage and thus it is sinful to cleave to more than one person. In the same way, the evils of "gentile" government that were tolerated have become increasingly morally untenable as they go against the true biblical understanding that as we are all God's children, created in the image of God, we should all be respected as such. Those who claim to rule with God's authority must meet the same moral standards God does, and if they do not they must be accountable to God's fellow children for their failings because leaders have no moral nature higher than those they rule (and often a good deal lower of a nature). We are all equals in the eye of God, who is no respector of persons. We should not be respectors of persons (or titles) either.
Unfortunately, this world seems not to have been created with an eye towards making sure justice happened in this life. A just world would need to be ruled by a perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful being or set of beings, and only God meets that qualification. Therefore, those of us who long for a just world long for God's kingdom, even if we try to help this earth more closely resemble the perfect world above. Whether we admit this or not is one thing, but our world's demands for justice mean that we demand (whether consciously or not) for God to come to this earth and set up His kingdom, because none of us are capable of the perfect moral demands. It is for this reason that no just human government is unaccountable, because imperfect beings must be held accountable for their actions in order to avoid the creation of abusive systems of government (something of particular distaste for me).
Since this world is unjust, though, and since a perfectly just universe would not be particularly kind for any of us (because all of us fall woefully short of the perfect standard and are deserving of death for our sins), there must be some place for mercy and grace in our behavior as well. We must not abuse these to excuse the sins of others (who often twist grace and mercy to give themselves license to take advantage of others while demanding forgiveness for their own actions). However, mercy and grace are necessary because if we cannot forgive others and cast our burdens upon Jesus Christ then we ourselves carry a burden of bitterness and anger that no one can or should bear. And about that I have all too much experience myself. Since this world is unjust, though, sometimes we must wait for justice in the time to come, when no one will be able to escape censure for their deeds, naked in the harsh light of day to face accountability for their deeds. I think, though, that such a time would not be a time for gloating, but at least it will be fair. And that is enough.
So now he is dead, and can no longer face justice in this world. The result of his death was a mixture of cheering and mourning, of riots against Chile's recent attempts to try the aged Pinochet for his crimes, cheering people who claim (in a news article I read on it) to love Pinochet like they love their own children, and mourning people who feel as if the opportunity for justice has been taken from them. We live in an unjust world (and some of us have a more intimate and personal understanding of this than others, and some of us understand the injustice in different ways because of our own different personal experience). This world has always been unjust, and as long as humans govern I do not have hope that it will ever be entirely just, though I would hope for it to be a good deal more just than it is now. The world was probably more unjust in the past than it is now, but there is greater dissatisfaction at justice now than before, and injustices people used to get away with without comment now bring harsh condemnation (from people like myself, often).
There are two ways of viewing this growing dissatisfaction with the injustice of this world. One view, largely a holdover from wicked days in which leaders ruled harshly without accountability for their often wicked actions, considers leaders to be some kind of divinely ordained power figures who are only answerable to God and not to mere mortals (especially cranky and somewhat mistrusting mortals like myself). Simply because leaders behaved this way through much of the course of human history (and because of the undeniable appeal of leading when one does not have to answer to the hoi polloi, that is, the common folk) this still appeals in politically backwards and ungodly leadership models.
The other way of viewing this problem is the one I hold. In the two millenia since Jesus Christ came to this earth certain evils which were tolerated in times of old have become less tenable. Slavery, which was a "necessary" evil in the times of Paul (see Philemon) gradually became morally untenable as the commands to love slaves as brethren increasingly meant (as it was intended to originally) that one should not have slaves at all. The same is true with polygamy as being against the biblical mutual respect of men and women and the understanding that a man and a woman become one in marriage and thus it is sinful to cleave to more than one person. In the same way, the evils of "gentile" government that were tolerated have become increasingly morally untenable as they go against the true biblical understanding that as we are all God's children, created in the image of God, we should all be respected as such. Those who claim to rule with God's authority must meet the same moral standards God does, and if they do not they must be accountable to God's fellow children for their failings because leaders have no moral nature higher than those they rule (and often a good deal lower of a nature). We are all equals in the eye of God, who is no respector of persons. We should not be respectors of persons (or titles) either.
Unfortunately, this world seems not to have been created with an eye towards making sure justice happened in this life. A just world would need to be ruled by a perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful being or set of beings, and only God meets that qualification. Therefore, those of us who long for a just world long for God's kingdom, even if we try to help this earth more closely resemble the perfect world above. Whether we admit this or not is one thing, but our world's demands for justice mean that we demand (whether consciously or not) for God to come to this earth and set up His kingdom, because none of us are capable of the perfect moral demands. It is for this reason that no just human government is unaccountable, because imperfect beings must be held accountable for their actions in order to avoid the creation of abusive systems of government (something of particular distaste for me).
Since this world is unjust, though, and since a perfectly just universe would not be particularly kind for any of us (because all of us fall woefully short of the perfect standard and are deserving of death for our sins), there must be some place for mercy and grace in our behavior as well. We must not abuse these to excuse the sins of others (who often twist grace and mercy to give themselves license to take advantage of others while demanding forgiveness for their own actions). However, mercy and grace are necessary because if we cannot forgive others and cast our burdens upon Jesus Christ then we ourselves carry a burden of bitterness and anger that no one can or should bear. And about that I have all too much experience myself. Since this world is unjust, though, sometimes we must wait for justice in the time to come, when no one will be able to escape censure for their deeds, naked in the harsh light of day to face accountability for their deeds. I think, though, that such a time would not be a time for gloating, but at least it will be fair. And that is enough.
Friday, November 10, 2006
A Bittersweet Success
This week I officially got my own office instead of having to share the copy room with a particularly ornery machine that has a tendency to jam easily, grab too many papers to scan or copy at once, and generally behave in a surly manner. While my papers at work are still in the state of some chaos (then again, aren't they always?), I know have some space to myself, even if I don't particularly like the layout yet. For example, I don't like the fact that the entrance to the office is behind me, as I tend to panic when people surprise me from behind. But I digress. Despite my pleasure about having an office of my own, what makes it a bittersweet success is the rather sad circumstances that opened up an office for me in the first place.
The former occupant of this office was named Manuel. He was in his mid-to-late 50's, overweight, with high blood pressure, high cholesteral, sleep apnia, and so forth (all of these problems being similar to those of my father before he had his stroke last December and died of a heart attack in February). He slept little (more at work than anywhere else), and worked two jobs--reviewing building plans as well as delivering newspapers. Then, while I was out of the country last month, he had a brain aneurysm. He is still in the hospital, though he may be released soon, as he has somewhat recovered (though his brain function is still highly limited and he is not going to be able to return for a long time, if ever, to work, a disastrous consequence for his family).
I can think of a few reasons why my coworker's health would be of such a concern to me, besides the fact that in general I don't like to see people suffer. What is the most troublesome is that his health seems to have been affected in a similar way to my father's health. Right now Manuel is at the slow recovery from a severe health crisis stage. Hopefully it goes well for him. Still, this has not been a good year for the health of people I know (I could go on and on with examples from friends, family, and coworkers, but I would rather not). Suffice it to say, though, that reminders of mortality are not ever very far from me, at least right now.
The former occupant of this office was named Manuel. He was in his mid-to-late 50's, overweight, with high blood pressure, high cholesteral, sleep apnia, and so forth (all of these problems being similar to those of my father before he had his stroke last December and died of a heart attack in February). He slept little (more at work than anywhere else), and worked two jobs--reviewing building plans as well as delivering newspapers. Then, while I was out of the country last month, he had a brain aneurysm. He is still in the hospital, though he may be released soon, as he has somewhat recovered (though his brain function is still highly limited and he is not going to be able to return for a long time, if ever, to work, a disastrous consequence for his family).
I can think of a few reasons why my coworker's health would be of such a concern to me, besides the fact that in general I don't like to see people suffer. What is the most troublesome is that his health seems to have been affected in a similar way to my father's health. Right now Manuel is at the slow recovery from a severe health crisis stage. Hopefully it goes well for him. Still, this has not been a good year for the health of people I know (I could go on and on with examples from friends, family, and coworkers, but I would rather not). Suffice it to say, though, that reminders of mortality are not ever very far from me, at least right now.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A Lesson In Irony
In my recent trip to the nation of Turkey, I saw two related cases of irony. The trip, however, was not merely ironic for me, but even more so for a friend of mine there as well, who was of Armenian ancestry. Why that would be ironic should be made clear in what follows.
Irony #1: Nathan correctly (and unintentionally) predicts the 2006 Nobel Prize Winner for Literature
Before I went to Turkey I wanted to do some research (because I am a compulsive reader and like to know information about the places I am about to see). Besides the usual tourist books (the Lonely Planet guide) and the history books, I decided to get a copy of "Istanbul: A Memoir" by the author Orhan Pamuk. I had been familiar with his work since reading a story about his arrest and trial by the Turkish government for making a comment about the Armenian genocide in his novel "Snow," published last year. He was, thankfully, acquitted, but for an author to suffer punishment for writing what is historical fact (or even a reasonable historical interpretation) is highly offensive to me.
Anyway, I read his memoir of his hometown, and it was an excellent book, a mixture of dryly ironic commentary on how his city has consistently thrown away its Turkish charm to appear ever more Western in the last 200 years as well as personal history about his own life and his family. He even manages to comment on the endemic stray dogs in Turkey (which I happened to see first hand). So, what does this have to do with predicting the Nobel Prize? Well, I thought I would attract a great deal of scrutiny for bringing such a pro-Western author to Turkey, but it turns out that customs in Turkey is rather non-rigorous and my bags were not even searched. Towards the end of my trip to Turkey, I found out that Orhan Pamuk had won the Nobel Prize for Literature, becoming the first Turk to win a Nobel Prize. And I could say (sorta) that I knew (of) him back when. At least this is a better story than my discovery of Ricky Martin before he became a big success (shifts eyes).
Irony #2: The Crime of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey and France
I commented earlier how one of my friends who was in Turkey with me was Armenian, and this particular irony is a rather cruel one. According to basic Turkish law, it is a crime to affirm the existence of the Armenian genocide. In fact, the crime is punishable (if one is convicted) by up to 3 years of prison time. This has long been a sticking point in the Turkish attempts to enter the European Union. After all, if Germans are forced to recognize the Holocost (as they do), then it would only be fair to expect other nations to admit their own historical misdeeds. Not that it is very pleasant business to admit massacres. Which Americans would want all of the American Indian massacres to be endlessly displayed prominently in accounts about the United States, after all?
Anyway, France passed, on October 12th, a law that made it a crime in France to deny the Armenian massacre. That puts any Turks who go between France and Turkey in a difficult position, at least if they are forced to confront the issue in both countries. The whole issue strikes me as rather grimly ironic in that two nations noted in the Christian and Muslim worlds, respectively, for their rather anti-religious secular stands are making such a religious issue (if I may use the term) over history. At any rate, I (somehow) avoided being arrested while in Turkey while delicately explaining the issue and at least strongly hinting at my own opinion on the matter. At least the rioting going on in Istanbul while we were there was against someone other than the United States. It was nice to see protests against another nation for a change.
Irony #1: Nathan correctly (and unintentionally) predicts the 2006 Nobel Prize Winner for Literature
Before I went to Turkey I wanted to do some research (because I am a compulsive reader and like to know information about the places I am about to see). Besides the usual tourist books (the Lonely Planet guide) and the history books, I decided to get a copy of "Istanbul: A Memoir" by the author Orhan Pamuk. I had been familiar with his work since reading a story about his arrest and trial by the Turkish government for making a comment about the Armenian genocide in his novel "Snow," published last year. He was, thankfully, acquitted, but for an author to suffer punishment for writing what is historical fact (or even a reasonable historical interpretation) is highly offensive to me.
Anyway, I read his memoir of his hometown, and it was an excellent book, a mixture of dryly ironic commentary on how his city has consistently thrown away its Turkish charm to appear ever more Western in the last 200 years as well as personal history about his own life and his family. He even manages to comment on the endemic stray dogs in Turkey (which I happened to see first hand). So, what does this have to do with predicting the Nobel Prize? Well, I thought I would attract a great deal of scrutiny for bringing such a pro-Western author to Turkey, but it turns out that customs in Turkey is rather non-rigorous and my bags were not even searched. Towards the end of my trip to Turkey, I found out that Orhan Pamuk had won the Nobel Prize for Literature, becoming the first Turk to win a Nobel Prize. And I could say (sorta) that I knew (of) him back when. At least this is a better story than my discovery of Ricky Martin before he became a big success (shifts eyes).
Irony #2: The Crime of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey and France
I commented earlier how one of my friends who was in Turkey with me was Armenian, and this particular irony is a rather cruel one. According to basic Turkish law, it is a crime to affirm the existence of the Armenian genocide. In fact, the crime is punishable (if one is convicted) by up to 3 years of prison time. This has long been a sticking point in the Turkish attempts to enter the European Union. After all, if Germans are forced to recognize the Holocost (as they do), then it would only be fair to expect other nations to admit their own historical misdeeds. Not that it is very pleasant business to admit massacres. Which Americans would want all of the American Indian massacres to be endlessly displayed prominently in accounts about the United States, after all?
Anyway, France passed, on October 12th, a law that made it a crime in France to deny the Armenian massacre. That puts any Turks who go between France and Turkey in a difficult position, at least if they are forced to confront the issue in both countries. The whole issue strikes me as rather grimly ironic in that two nations noted in the Christian and Muslim worlds, respectively, for their rather anti-religious secular stands are making such a religious issue (if I may use the term) over history. At any rate, I (somehow) avoided being arrested while in Turkey while delicately explaining the issue and at least strongly hinting at my own opinion on the matter. At least the rioting going on in Istanbul while we were there was against someone other than the United States. It was nice to see protests against another nation for a change.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Trouble In Paradise
For the last dozen years or so, it was widely thought in Thailand (and elsewhere) that the King of Thailand (who is quite beloved to people I know personally as supposedly having the best interests of his people at heart) was a bulwark for democracy in a part of the world that has known mostly dictators in the post-colonial period.
Of course, that is no longer the case as the King of Thailand has supported a coup by a Muslim General against a corrupt but populist democratic government. As is always the case in this sort of coup where rule of law is trampled by tyranny there is always some sort of specious justification--usually involving the attempt to get rid of corruption (even though undemocratic leadership is almost invariably more corrupt than democratic leadership even of the wickedest variety), or the need to cure pressing military problems that a general would be expected to know better than an elected politician.
The truth is that even though democracies are far from perfect governments, they are better at governing just about anything than any form of unrepresentative government. Generally speaking, democracies depend on the vigilance of the people (who themselves, in many politically immature systems, do not seek to be responsible as adults). Democracies, however, allow the governened to hold their leaders accountable for their actions, which is the most effective form of preventing corruption and keeping leaders reined in (which is sadly necessary at all times and in all situations). In all other forms of government, there is some form of force or fraud that prevents people from having rightful supervision over their government. In the case of a military government, the modus operendi is that of force, where men (and possibly women) with automatic machine guns prevent people from exercising their God-given rights. In that of a monarchy, the modus operendi is fraud, where a leader perports to have some sort of divine or semi-divine status that puts such a leader beyond scrutiny and criticism from mere commoners. In Thailand, the current situation has a little bit of both flavors of tyranny.
Despite the promises that some form of autocracy will be more efficient and effective than a democratic form of government, the truth invariably demonstrates that any gain in stability depends upon massive atrocities and only temporarily hides the disasters that threaten society, and exacerbate their results (see Congo, Iraq, Nepal, etc.). In addition, the threat of military force at the slightest problem a democracy faces prevents the citizenry of a given nation from developing the necessary maturity to make democracy work. Democracy is not an easy business--it depends on there being an active citizenry with the expectation that laws will be obeyed by all--including lawmakers, soldiers, and other officials of the state. It also depends on a citizenry that is willing to demand their rights (even at a cost) and accept the responsibilities for ensuring that no one abuses their power. This is the responsibility of adults, who are capable of dividing right from wrong and are able to handle solid intellectual and moral food rather than the milk of civics lessons.
What is currently going on in Thailand at best will end up in a situation like Nepal (where popular demonstrations forced the fall of the autocratic monarchial rule) and Argentina (where a disastrous military conflict ended the rule of a military junta not unlike Thailand's current leadership). At worst, dictatorships can linger on indefinitely despite failures in solving the military problems that bring them to power (see Pakistan, Myanmar), or can even threaten the absolute dissolution of a nation (see Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Congo, Serbia, etc.) and attract foreign military operations. It is far better, given this grim picture, for a nation to tough out the inevitable rough periods of an early democracy and form their own solutions to problems that allow for minority rights as well as majority rule, lead to more egalitarian social structures and the elimination of immoral systems of social division that deny the natural equality of humanity, all issues of massive difficulty that demand gradual and patient work. In no nation can these tasks be considered completed, but only in a society of mature political citizens can such tasks even be partially resolved in a lasting and beneficial fashion.
Sadly, these basic lessons are too often ignored, both by people with power who become addicted to position and authority and who forget that what is best for them is seldom best for the people as a whole (even paternalistic authoritarianism is an unrighteous form of government). While it may seem expedient in such cases to temporarily withhold democracy in order to deal with pressing problems, the skills in creating and maintaining a democracy can only be learned through struggling through trials. As painful as such difficulties may be for a nation, it is necessary for a society to endure such difficulties so that they may grow in maturity. To treat the citizenry of a society as children forever is to deny the promise that God provide to us as rulers. If we are to rule effectively over others, we must be able to rule over ourselves and develop self-control, patience, and resopnsibility. This can only be learned in an egalitarian society where people are resopnsible for their own actions without being able to rely on the commands of others who claim some sort of superiority to them.
How long will the simple love simplicity (for nothing in this world is truly simple)? It seems, in much of the world, that it will be for at least a while longer.
Of course, that is no longer the case as the King of Thailand has supported a coup by a Muslim General against a corrupt but populist democratic government. As is always the case in this sort of coup where rule of law is trampled by tyranny there is always some sort of specious justification--usually involving the attempt to get rid of corruption (even though undemocratic leadership is almost invariably more corrupt than democratic leadership even of the wickedest variety), or the need to cure pressing military problems that a general would be expected to know better than an elected politician.
The truth is that even though democracies are far from perfect governments, they are better at governing just about anything than any form of unrepresentative government. Generally speaking, democracies depend on the vigilance of the people (who themselves, in many politically immature systems, do not seek to be responsible as adults). Democracies, however, allow the governened to hold their leaders accountable for their actions, which is the most effective form of preventing corruption and keeping leaders reined in (which is sadly necessary at all times and in all situations). In all other forms of government, there is some form of force or fraud that prevents people from having rightful supervision over their government. In the case of a military government, the modus operendi is that of force, where men (and possibly women) with automatic machine guns prevent people from exercising their God-given rights. In that of a monarchy, the modus operendi is fraud, where a leader perports to have some sort of divine or semi-divine status that puts such a leader beyond scrutiny and criticism from mere commoners. In Thailand, the current situation has a little bit of both flavors of tyranny.
Despite the promises that some form of autocracy will be more efficient and effective than a democratic form of government, the truth invariably demonstrates that any gain in stability depends upon massive atrocities and only temporarily hides the disasters that threaten society, and exacerbate their results (see Congo, Iraq, Nepal, etc.). In addition, the threat of military force at the slightest problem a democracy faces prevents the citizenry of a given nation from developing the necessary maturity to make democracy work. Democracy is not an easy business--it depends on there being an active citizenry with the expectation that laws will be obeyed by all--including lawmakers, soldiers, and other officials of the state. It also depends on a citizenry that is willing to demand their rights (even at a cost) and accept the responsibilities for ensuring that no one abuses their power. This is the responsibility of adults, who are capable of dividing right from wrong and are able to handle solid intellectual and moral food rather than the milk of civics lessons.
What is currently going on in Thailand at best will end up in a situation like Nepal (where popular demonstrations forced the fall of the autocratic monarchial rule) and Argentina (where a disastrous military conflict ended the rule of a military junta not unlike Thailand's current leadership). At worst, dictatorships can linger on indefinitely despite failures in solving the military problems that bring them to power (see Pakistan, Myanmar), or can even threaten the absolute dissolution of a nation (see Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Congo, Serbia, etc.) and attract foreign military operations. It is far better, given this grim picture, for a nation to tough out the inevitable rough periods of an early democracy and form their own solutions to problems that allow for minority rights as well as majority rule, lead to more egalitarian social structures and the elimination of immoral systems of social division that deny the natural equality of humanity, all issues of massive difficulty that demand gradual and patient work. In no nation can these tasks be considered completed, but only in a society of mature political citizens can such tasks even be partially resolved in a lasting and beneficial fashion.
Sadly, these basic lessons are too often ignored, both by people with power who become addicted to position and authority and who forget that what is best for them is seldom best for the people as a whole (even paternalistic authoritarianism is an unrighteous form of government). While it may seem expedient in such cases to temporarily withhold democracy in order to deal with pressing problems, the skills in creating and maintaining a democracy can only be learned through struggling through trials. As painful as such difficulties may be for a nation, it is necessary for a society to endure such difficulties so that they may grow in maturity. To treat the citizenry of a society as children forever is to deny the promise that God provide to us as rulers. If we are to rule effectively over others, we must be able to rule over ourselves and develop self-control, patience, and resopnsibility. This can only be learned in an egalitarian society where people are resopnsible for their own actions without being able to rely on the commands of others who claim some sort of superiority to them.
How long will the simple love simplicity (for nothing in this world is truly simple)? It seems, in much of the world, that it will be for at least a while longer.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Imaginary Engineer
For those who do not know, I am a graduate student in Industrial Engineering (Engineering Management) at the University of South Florida. During a discussion in class yesterday (Tuesday, 9/12) our class (and professor) had a rather passionate discussion of what makes Industrial Engineering such an obscure and misunderstood part of the engineering profession (thankfully no one has asked me about the Taylor motion studies--yet).
My background, to be fair, is not that of industrial engineering. Until I was well into college (my junior year, to be precise), I had scarcely heard anything at all about Industrial Engineering, despite being very active in the engineering school and finding acquaintances from a wide variety of engineering disciplines. My background is Civil (Structural) Engineering. While people may not know my specialty is buildings (most people, for some reason, automatically think of bridges), at least some people have an idea of what civil engineers do. Maybe a woefully small percentage of this world, but a recognizable portion nevertheless. Industrial engineering lacks even this sort of common understanding.
This may not be a bad thing. When people do know about Industrial Engineering, they inevitably misunderstand it (I will refrain, at this time, from extending that comment into a general thesis of my endeavors). The name Industrial Engineering itself is somewhat off-putting. People think of factories and assembly line processes when they think of Industrial Engineering. While this is certainly a part of the field, it is a very small part (in this country--not so in areas of the world where primary manufacturing actually goes on). For the most part, Industrial Engineering can be (perhaps a tad misleadingly) simplied as management for and of smart people. In particular, Industrial Engineering looks at the processes (both in procedures and power relationships as well as in technology and equipment) that lead to efficiency as well as effectiveness in management (including the management of engineers--who in a previous discussion in another class of mine had very little nice to say about MBA's without an engineering background). A look at my classes in my curriculum sheet will give some idea as to the sorts of material an industrial engineer would study on the master's degree level:
Principles of Engineering Management
Management of Technological Change
Technology and Finance
Engineering Management Policy and Strategies
Statistical Design Models
Work Design and Productivity
Total Quality Management Strategies
Occupational Safety Engineering
Project Management
ISO 9000/14000
Benchmarking
In other words, the field of Industrial Engineering is one of those hybrid fields between engineering (with its focus on technical and technological solutions to the problems of mankind) and concerns of management (even adopting some of the jargon of management, like Total Quality Management and Six Sigma and so forth, as well as the concern of finances). This sort of blend has led Industrial Engineers to market themselves (when they do market themselves, which is not often, apparently) as engineering without the math (and by math engineers mean such things as differential equations and matrix analysis). The fact that Industrial Engineering is not as heavy in high level mathematics has led many other (perhaps envious) engineering students to label Industrial Engineers as "Imaginary Engineers."
I find this to be amusing, but others are perhaps less amused by this. Every major, at least in engineering, has some sort of insult attached to it (my favorite for the civil engineering profession: mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets--and my favorite for engineers in general is: What do engineers use for birth control? Their personalities.). Industrial Engineers seem to have done a poor job of marketing themselves. This is perhpas ironic, but it is not a serious problem to me (I generally have a severe distaste for the inevitable distortion and oversimplification that results from marketing efforts, even if I recognize the necessity of successful marketing to make sure the needs of people are met, even when those needs are not originally known or felt). As it is, there are few industrial engineers in this world, and few people know what they do or how important they are. This was the source of some humor in the classroom as well.
I suppose I could go on much longer, but the basic point has been made and I have other ways to spend my time then endlessly pontificate on an obscure field most people reading this are probably quite unfamiliar with. At any rate, hopefully this has been a useful update as to how I spend my time when I am not ranting about some topic, and about why my updates are so infrequent. Regardless, until my next post, fare thee well.
My background, to be fair, is not that of industrial engineering. Until I was well into college (my junior year, to be precise), I had scarcely heard anything at all about Industrial Engineering, despite being very active in the engineering school and finding acquaintances from a wide variety of engineering disciplines. My background is Civil (Structural) Engineering. While people may not know my specialty is buildings (most people, for some reason, automatically think of bridges), at least some people have an idea of what civil engineers do. Maybe a woefully small percentage of this world, but a recognizable portion nevertheless. Industrial engineering lacks even this sort of common understanding.
This may not be a bad thing. When people do know about Industrial Engineering, they inevitably misunderstand it (I will refrain, at this time, from extending that comment into a general thesis of my endeavors). The name Industrial Engineering itself is somewhat off-putting. People think of factories and assembly line processes when they think of Industrial Engineering. While this is certainly a part of the field, it is a very small part (in this country--not so in areas of the world where primary manufacturing actually goes on). For the most part, Industrial Engineering can be (perhaps a tad misleadingly) simplied as management for and of smart people. In particular, Industrial Engineering looks at the processes (both in procedures and power relationships as well as in technology and equipment) that lead to efficiency as well as effectiveness in management (including the management of engineers--who in a previous discussion in another class of mine had very little nice to say about MBA's without an engineering background). A look at my classes in my curriculum sheet will give some idea as to the sorts of material an industrial engineer would study on the master's degree level:
Principles of Engineering Management
Management of Technological Change
Technology and Finance
Engineering Management Policy and Strategies
Statistical Design Models
Work Design and Productivity
Total Quality Management Strategies
Occupational Safety Engineering
Project Management
ISO 9000/14000
Benchmarking
In other words, the field of Industrial Engineering is one of those hybrid fields between engineering (with its focus on technical and technological solutions to the problems of mankind) and concerns of management (even adopting some of the jargon of management, like Total Quality Management and Six Sigma and so forth, as well as the concern of finances). This sort of blend has led Industrial Engineers to market themselves (when they do market themselves, which is not often, apparently) as engineering without the math (and by math engineers mean such things as differential equations and matrix analysis). The fact that Industrial Engineering is not as heavy in high level mathematics has led many other (perhaps envious) engineering students to label Industrial Engineers as "Imaginary Engineers."
I find this to be amusing, but others are perhaps less amused by this. Every major, at least in engineering, has some sort of insult attached to it (my favorite for the civil engineering profession: mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets--and my favorite for engineers in general is: What do engineers use for birth control? Their personalities.). Industrial Engineers seem to have done a poor job of marketing themselves. This is perhpas ironic, but it is not a serious problem to me (I generally have a severe distaste for the inevitable distortion and oversimplification that results from marketing efforts, even if I recognize the necessity of successful marketing to make sure the needs of people are met, even when those needs are not originally known or felt). As it is, there are few industrial engineers in this world, and few people know what they do or how important they are. This was the source of some humor in the classroom as well.
I suppose I could go on much longer, but the basic point has been made and I have other ways to spend my time then endlessly pontificate on an obscure field most people reading this are probably quite unfamiliar with. At any rate, hopefully this has been a useful update as to how I spend my time when I am not ranting about some topic, and about why my updates are so infrequent. Regardless, until my next post, fare thee well.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
They got no clues and they wanna get warmer, but Nate won't turn informer...
Alright, I suppose that not many people will be familiar with the bad one-hit wonder lyrics (For those who are really curious, they happen to be from Snow's "Informer."). However, there is a serious point to the rather flippant title. Currently, the nation of Romania has been faced with a growing furor over the release of files about the secret service during the Communist regime. Apparently, the nation of Romania had 700,000 informers in a population of only 21,000,000 people. Seriously, that is one informer for every thirty people. And people think I'm paranoid.
Anyway, with all that snooping going on, it appears that some skeletons hidden deep in closets are being revealed in a rather unpleasant manner. For example, one respected former BBC reporter (according to an AP article on this topic by Allison Multer) apparently was snooping on his friend, a poet, because he had made a fellow university classmate pregnant and refused to marry her. For this the government blackmailed him. At least his friend, upon finding out what was reported, had the kind heart to forgive the reporter for what was "neutral" information. Many others were not so fortunate.
What makes someone turn informer? It is a frightening thing when societies become so dark, and so incapable of handling matters openly and honestly that they must sneak around in dark corners trying to find all sorts of unpleasant information to turn family members and friends against each other. It's a terrible world when people seek to extort and blackmail others because of our human mistakes in order to make us tools of oppressive tyrannical government. *Shivers*.
It is rather easy in such cases to think the problem exists merely in other societies, particualrly communist or Facist societies. It is certainly true that totalitarian societies tend to have a lot of this sort of informing going on. However, paranoia does not merely exist in societies like Stalin's Russia, Ceaucescu's Romania, or Hitler's Germany. Elizabethan England, for example, had much the same problem. Such informing has existed in our own society before as well, and may yet again.
However, such a paranoid society cannot exist without willing participants. In societies that depend on secretive behavior and the paranoia of thought control, much still depends on the courage and strength of people to thwart the wickedness of corrupt leaders and their shady minions. It may be a regrettable necessity (and I think it is both regrettable and necessary) that we all live at least somewhat secretive lives, in at least certain ways. We call such secrecy privacy after all, and value it highly.
If the rise of snooping technology allows every moment of our lives, and every word we say (or write) fodder for prying and unfriendly eyes, we still do not have to cower in fear if wicked people seek to use such knowledge against us. We have the choice, if we are brave enough, to face up to what we have done and refuse to collaborate with any kind of secret police force. The choice and the responsibility are ours, and we must all face on our own, at some time, the bitter choice between living an honest and candid life and giving in to the temptations of an easier and less complicated life. Nothing worthwhile is simple anyway. Everything is complicated, and those who have easy answers speak without wisdom and understanding. And sometimes, there are no good choices, but merely a choice about whether we are to suffer in one way or another.
Whichever path one chooses in such occasions, though, there is a lot of sympathy from me for such people. After all, those who inform on the lower level are often fairly ordinary people, and often feel the greatest amount of guilt and suffering for what they do, because they do not have the defenses of habitualization that numb and harden the conscience against wrongdoing that come for those higher in authority. Even so, regardless of what one chooses, sometimes there is a bitter price we must pay. It is useful to reflect upon that sometimes.
Anyway, with all that snooping going on, it appears that some skeletons hidden deep in closets are being revealed in a rather unpleasant manner. For example, one respected former BBC reporter (according to an AP article on this topic by Allison Multer) apparently was snooping on his friend, a poet, because he had made a fellow university classmate pregnant and refused to marry her. For this the government blackmailed him. At least his friend, upon finding out what was reported, had the kind heart to forgive the reporter for what was "neutral" information. Many others were not so fortunate.
What makes someone turn informer? It is a frightening thing when societies become so dark, and so incapable of handling matters openly and honestly that they must sneak around in dark corners trying to find all sorts of unpleasant information to turn family members and friends against each other. It's a terrible world when people seek to extort and blackmail others because of our human mistakes in order to make us tools of oppressive tyrannical government. *Shivers*.
It is rather easy in such cases to think the problem exists merely in other societies, particualrly communist or Facist societies. It is certainly true that totalitarian societies tend to have a lot of this sort of informing going on. However, paranoia does not merely exist in societies like Stalin's Russia, Ceaucescu's Romania, or Hitler's Germany. Elizabethan England, for example, had much the same problem. Such informing has existed in our own society before as well, and may yet again.
However, such a paranoid society cannot exist without willing participants. In societies that depend on secretive behavior and the paranoia of thought control, much still depends on the courage and strength of people to thwart the wickedness of corrupt leaders and their shady minions. It may be a regrettable necessity (and I think it is both regrettable and necessary) that we all live at least somewhat secretive lives, in at least certain ways. We call such secrecy privacy after all, and value it highly.
If the rise of snooping technology allows every moment of our lives, and every word we say (or write) fodder for prying and unfriendly eyes, we still do not have to cower in fear if wicked people seek to use such knowledge against us. We have the choice, if we are brave enough, to face up to what we have done and refuse to collaborate with any kind of secret police force. The choice and the responsibility are ours, and we must all face on our own, at some time, the bitter choice between living an honest and candid life and giving in to the temptations of an easier and less complicated life. Nothing worthwhile is simple anyway. Everything is complicated, and those who have easy answers speak without wisdom and understanding. And sometimes, there are no good choices, but merely a choice about whether we are to suffer in one way or another.
Whichever path one chooses in such occasions, though, there is a lot of sympathy from me for such people. After all, those who inform on the lower level are often fairly ordinary people, and often feel the greatest amount of guilt and suffering for what they do, because they do not have the defenses of habitualization that numb and harden the conscience against wrongdoing that come for those higher in authority. Even so, regardless of what one chooses, sometimes there is a bitter price we must pay. It is useful to reflect upon that sometimes.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Planetary Bodies
A group of astronomers have decided to tackle the thorny issue of planetary definitions, a task that has grown more controversial in recent years. They have proposed a hard and fast definition for planets with three components: 1)Planets must be 500 miles in diamater or larger. 2)Planets must orbit a sun. 3)Planets must be circular with self-gravity. This last qualification is the toughest, surprisingly enough, disqualifying earth's moon (whose shared center of gravity with the earth is outside of the moon).
If this definition of planets is accepted, it would mean that there would be 12 currently recognized planets, with the possibility of many more in the future. Besides the eight planets recognized without controversy (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), and my favorite, albeit controversial planet (Pluto), there would be three more planets: Ceres (the largest member of the astroid belt), Charon (Pluto's moon, which would be promoted to the solar system's first "double planet"), and Xena (a recently discovered Kuiper belt object--like Pluto and Charon--slightly larger than Pluto). Of course, any object in the solar system that met the three defintions above would also have to be added to this list.
This would mean that other definitions would have to change. Astroids and comets, for example, could no longer be called "minor planets" or "planetoids" as they currently are. As for whatever heavenly bodies met the definition of planet, they would fall into one of three categories. The first is the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Ceres (?)) which are rocky planets of small to moderate size that have a regular orbit and are kept warm to hot by the sun. The second group of planets would be made up of the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) that are all of large size, with regular orbits, and have a large number of moons. Any of these moons that had self-gravity would also be planets as well, though this does not appear to be the case at all at the current time. Finally, the third group of planets in the solar system would be called "plutons," which are small, cold, distant, dark, and have eccentric orbits. Is it any wonder I like this type of planet so much? Included in this type of planet would be Pluto, Charon, Xena (or whatever they rename it) and any other large spherical Kuiper Belt Objects.
I don't know about you, but I have to salute the 17 year old blogger who mobilized a "save Pluto" campaign and thus influenced astronomers to come up with a consistent definition of a planet, even if it means that textbooks will have to be edited accordingly. At least my beloved Pluto remains a planet, with some new company to boot.
If this definition of planets is accepted, it would mean that there would be 12 currently recognized planets, with the possibility of many more in the future. Besides the eight planets recognized without controversy (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), and my favorite, albeit controversial planet (Pluto), there would be three more planets: Ceres (the largest member of the astroid belt), Charon (Pluto's moon, which would be promoted to the solar system's first "double planet"), and Xena (a recently discovered Kuiper belt object--like Pluto and Charon--slightly larger than Pluto). Of course, any object in the solar system that met the three defintions above would also have to be added to this list.
This would mean that other definitions would have to change. Astroids and comets, for example, could no longer be called "minor planets" or "planetoids" as they currently are. As for whatever heavenly bodies met the definition of planet, they would fall into one of three categories. The first is the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Ceres (?)) which are rocky planets of small to moderate size that have a regular orbit and are kept warm to hot by the sun. The second group of planets would be made up of the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) that are all of large size, with regular orbits, and have a large number of moons. Any of these moons that had self-gravity would also be planets as well, though this does not appear to be the case at all at the current time. Finally, the third group of planets in the solar system would be called "plutons," which are small, cold, distant, dark, and have eccentric orbits. Is it any wonder I like this type of planet so much? Included in this type of planet would be Pluto, Charon, Xena (or whatever they rename it) and any other large spherical Kuiper Belt Objects.
I don't know about you, but I have to salute the 17 year old blogger who mobilized a "save Pluto" campaign and thus influenced astronomers to come up with a consistent definition of a planet, even if it means that textbooks will have to be edited accordingly. At least my beloved Pluto remains a planet, with some new company to boot.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Las Islas Malvinas
I had wanted to write about the Tour de France, but the recent scandal concerning Floyd Landis' win provided a rather cynical story, and though I'm not opposed to those in principle I figured I wanted something with a grim sense of humor rather than an almost Greek tragedy of hubris.
So today I looked at a lovely article which talked about recent problems between Britain and Argentina over some remote rocky islands in the South Atlantic, a few hundred miles off the Argentine coast. These islands were the cause of the Faulklands War in 1982, when I was all of a year old. The upside of this war was enshrining Prime Minister Thatcher as the "Iron Lady" and the collapse of the military dictatorship in Argentina (always a cause for celebration). Of course, this did not settle the issue.
After all, the Fauklands (called by South Americans Las Islas Malvinas) have been an international issue since at least the 1770's. At that time they were empty islands belonging to the crown of Spain. During the collapse of Spain's colonial empire, England began to increase their presence in that part of the world. For example, St. Helena, an island only a few hundred miles away in an equally barren part of the South Atlantic, was the final prison of Napoleon. So some British settlers came to eke out a rough existence of fishing and sheepbreeding (woot) while Argentina was fighting for its independence.
Of course, once Argentina had its independence and government settled (a task that lasted until the 1860's) they wanted the islands back, but it was tough luck, as the British were not interested in returning the islands. Once the British Empire itself fell apart, the Faulklands took on an intense symbolic meaning for both nations, far beyond its actual value (it is a net money loser for England, but that hardly matters when national pride is at stake). For Argentina, the islands symbolize a part of the Argentine homeland that has been taken from them. For the British, the Faulklands are a symbol of glory and empire that has not yet completely died out.
So, what will come of this round of what is currently economic warfare? It is hard to say, but such cases as this are ones I tend to find great amusement (perhaps that is the wrong word) in. How about you?
So today I looked at a lovely article which talked about recent problems between Britain and Argentina over some remote rocky islands in the South Atlantic, a few hundred miles off the Argentine coast. These islands were the cause of the Faulklands War in 1982, when I was all of a year old. The upside of this war was enshrining Prime Minister Thatcher as the "Iron Lady" and the collapse of the military dictatorship in Argentina (always a cause for celebration). Of course, this did not settle the issue.
After all, the Fauklands (called by South Americans Las Islas Malvinas) have been an international issue since at least the 1770's. At that time they were empty islands belonging to the crown of Spain. During the collapse of Spain's colonial empire, England began to increase their presence in that part of the world. For example, St. Helena, an island only a few hundred miles away in an equally barren part of the South Atlantic, was the final prison of Napoleon. So some British settlers came to eke out a rough existence of fishing and sheepbreeding (woot) while Argentina was fighting for its independence.
Of course, once Argentina had its independence and government settled (a task that lasted until the 1860's) they wanted the islands back, but it was tough luck, as the British were not interested in returning the islands. Once the British Empire itself fell apart, the Faulklands took on an intense symbolic meaning for both nations, far beyond its actual value (it is a net money loser for England, but that hardly matters when national pride is at stake). For Argentina, the islands symbolize a part of the Argentine homeland that has been taken from them. For the British, the Faulklands are a symbol of glory and empire that has not yet completely died out.
So, what will come of this round of what is currently economic warfare? It is hard to say, but such cases as this are ones I tend to find great amusement (perhaps that is the wrong word) in. How about you?
Monday, July 17, 2006
The Next Oil Sheikdom?
While making my merry way through the news stories this evening, I came across a rather entertaining item about a land few people associate with oil, or for much of anything other than perhaps a failed Norweigian colony that died out in the 1400's, or some Inuit perhaps, or maybe lots and lots of snow. This land is ironically enough called Greenland, and if some oil companies have their way, this sparsely populated arctic desert of some 58,000 mostly Eskimo inhabitants will be rolling in plenty of green.
Somewhere under the rapidly thinning icecap of Greenland lies a lot of oil--by some estimates, half of the supply in Saudi Arabia (which is quite impressive by any standards). Until recently, this oil has been impossible to get at, because even though 110 billion gallons of oil is a huge amount, digging through a mile of ice is less than appealing, even with the drillbits at the disposal of the oil companies. Of course, now that Greenland's ice is melting like a snowcone on a hot summer day, it is rather ironic that this brings even more oil (and in a relatively peaceful part of the world) close to the surface, where it can be explored and exploited.
The residents of Greenland hope that the possible wealth brought to them by oil concessions allows them to become independent from Denmark. After all, the Danes have ruled this forsaken glacial wilderness since establishing some colonies on the coastal fringes of the rather icy land, which currently makes most of its income on fishing and depends on subsidies from Coopenhagen to survive. If the oil of Greenland can be tapped, though, Greenland seeks to become the next Kuwait.
Of course, not everyone is thrilled about the prospect of intense oil business in what has hitherto been a very remote portion of the earth. Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have expressed concern over possible harm to the whale and seabird population that currently dwells in a land with relatively little direct human impact. Of course, since Greenlanders are seeing plenty of cash opportunities with their oil reserves, it is likely that if the oil can be found, those seabirds and whales are probably just going to have to go elsewhere.
That is, unless oil is found on Baffin Island.
Somewhere under the rapidly thinning icecap of Greenland lies a lot of oil--by some estimates, half of the supply in Saudi Arabia (which is quite impressive by any standards). Until recently, this oil has been impossible to get at, because even though 110 billion gallons of oil is a huge amount, digging through a mile of ice is less than appealing, even with the drillbits at the disposal of the oil companies. Of course, now that Greenland's ice is melting like a snowcone on a hot summer day, it is rather ironic that this brings even more oil (and in a relatively peaceful part of the world) close to the surface, where it can be explored and exploited.
The residents of Greenland hope that the possible wealth brought to them by oil concessions allows them to become independent from Denmark. After all, the Danes have ruled this forsaken glacial wilderness since establishing some colonies on the coastal fringes of the rather icy land, which currently makes most of its income on fishing and depends on subsidies from Coopenhagen to survive. If the oil of Greenland can be tapped, though, Greenland seeks to become the next Kuwait.
Of course, not everyone is thrilled about the prospect of intense oil business in what has hitherto been a very remote portion of the earth. Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have expressed concern over possible harm to the whale and seabird population that currently dwells in a land with relatively little direct human impact. Of course, since Greenlanders are seeing plenty of cash opportunities with their oil reserves, it is likely that if the oil can be found, those seabirds and whales are probably just going to have to go elsewhere.
That is, unless oil is found on Baffin Island.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Wise Fools In Shakespeare
I recently received a lovely one-volume Oxford Complete Works of Shakespeare, as Shakespeare has long been a favorite playwright of mine. Despite having lived more than four hundred years ago, his plays speak to modern concerns about militarism (Coriolanus), relations between church and state (King Henry VIII, King John), the difference between fantasy and reality (The Tempest, A Winter's Tale, A Midsummer Night's Dream), the problems of feminism (Taming of the Shrew, All's Well That Ends Well), the problems of legitimacy of authority (all of the historical plays, especially Richard II and Richard III, as well as Henry V, besides Macbeth and Hamlet, and other plays besides this), racism (The Merchant of Venice, Othello), problems in dealing with old age (King Lear), the problems of premature romance (Romeo & Juliet), the effects of moral depravity on society (Trolius and Cressida, Measure For Measure), the difficulties in maintaining one's morality in a corrupt society (Measure For Measure as well as Perseus) and so on and so forth. Rare among fiction authors, there are few areas of human behavior that Shakespeare does not touch on in his 40 plays (this includes the 36 plays of his first folio, Perseus, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Edward III, and the long lost Cardenio).
However, today I would like to discuss an odd character perhaps best exemplified in Twelfth Night's Feste and King Lear's Fool, something that this society could probably use more of. That is the phenomenon of the wise fool. Both of these characters are the wisest and most clear-headed of all the characters in their respective plays. The fool had a valuable place in the society of the Middle Ages and the early modern period. The fool, rare among people, had freedom of speech, and was expected to make witty and sarcastic comments about rulers and courtiers alike. In a society (not unlike many parts of our own society) where flattery of leaders was treasured and bluntspoken honesty was not, the fool could speak the truth, and would find his words laughed at and appreciated rather than punished and censured. This is because the fool had no political ambitions, and his honesty and skill at witty sarcasm earned him his keep, rather than the decietful words of lying advisors with their own personal agendas. A wise ruler paid close attention to his fool, and woe falls to the ruler who does not keep an honest fool (like Richard II) or does not pay sufficient attention to his fool (King Lear).
Indeed, Shakespeare's plays are set up so that those characters who mock fools, even in comedies (Twelfth Night's Malvolio) end up badly. This is because Shakespeare's fools, though their language is sometimes cryptic (though most often not terribly difficult to discover), are quite honest truthtellers. Perhaps Shakespeare saw himself as a bit of a fool--his job being to entertain the public, but also seeing himself as a wise and knowledgeable spectator of human behavior, capable of delivering great insight to those who took his words seriously. Indeed, it is the disguising of great wisdom in the guise of folly (because most people, except the most tiresome and serious among us, will choose frivolity and entertainment over serious subjects) that allows his points to sink home so well, and accounts for his lasting fame and his appeal to scholarly minds and constant reinterpretations (witness the recent movies Ten Things I Hate About You, O, She's The Man, besides the various Kenneth Barnaugh adaptations of Shakespeare's plays). Shakespeare neither bored his audience by being too serious (he would throw in passionate lovers, mistaken identities, fighting, songs, and spectacles to keep the peanut gallery entertained), but he never sold out to merely creating worthless entertainment. Even his most superficial of plays contains much of depth and interest that is worthy of serious reflection. This is because Shakespeare himself was quite astute in viewing people and had a solid grounding in classical literature from the sacred (the Bible), to historical works in his own language (Holinshed's Chronicles), as well as classic literature in several languages (Latin, Italian, and French, at the very least).
It is a shame we in our modern society suffer from a lack of wise fools. That is not to say we do not have fools (I would consider myself one, and in various fashions I am sure others would agree--some in the friendlier sense of a Feste, others perhaps in a more Proverbial sense for those more hostile). Our society has no lack of people who speak and write as experts on subjects, but these people all seem to be motivated by some kind of positional ambition or some kind of ulterior motives and thus are difficult to trust. Instead of the reminders of King Lear's fool about the need for social justice, we have films made by politically ambitious actors ("Syriana") or dramatically challenged failed politicians ("An Inconvenient Truth"). In short, we have plenty of self-proclaimed wise men, and plenty of fools, but no wise fools whose truth-telling is divorced from political spin and the need to dissemble for one's own ambitions of wealth, power, and influence. The wise fool is necessary precisely because he is free of such concerns, and so can fulfill the request of David in Psalm 141:5 to provide stinging, but ultimately beneficial, truth. A wise fool specializes in constructive critism--never going overboard either with flattery or with railing and hostile accusations. Personally, it is a balance I myself wish to find--someday...
However, today I would like to discuss an odd character perhaps best exemplified in Twelfth Night's Feste and King Lear's Fool, something that this society could probably use more of. That is the phenomenon of the wise fool. Both of these characters are the wisest and most clear-headed of all the characters in their respective plays. The fool had a valuable place in the society of the Middle Ages and the early modern period. The fool, rare among people, had freedom of speech, and was expected to make witty and sarcastic comments about rulers and courtiers alike. In a society (not unlike many parts of our own society) where flattery of leaders was treasured and bluntspoken honesty was not, the fool could speak the truth, and would find his words laughed at and appreciated rather than punished and censured. This is because the fool had no political ambitions, and his honesty and skill at witty sarcasm earned him his keep, rather than the decietful words of lying advisors with their own personal agendas. A wise ruler paid close attention to his fool, and woe falls to the ruler who does not keep an honest fool (like Richard II) or does not pay sufficient attention to his fool (King Lear).
Indeed, Shakespeare's plays are set up so that those characters who mock fools, even in comedies (Twelfth Night's Malvolio) end up badly. This is because Shakespeare's fools, though their language is sometimes cryptic (though most often not terribly difficult to discover), are quite honest truthtellers. Perhaps Shakespeare saw himself as a bit of a fool--his job being to entertain the public, but also seeing himself as a wise and knowledgeable spectator of human behavior, capable of delivering great insight to those who took his words seriously. Indeed, it is the disguising of great wisdom in the guise of folly (because most people, except the most tiresome and serious among us, will choose frivolity and entertainment over serious subjects) that allows his points to sink home so well, and accounts for his lasting fame and his appeal to scholarly minds and constant reinterpretations (witness the recent movies Ten Things I Hate About You, O, She's The Man, besides the various Kenneth Barnaugh adaptations of Shakespeare's plays). Shakespeare neither bored his audience by being too serious (he would throw in passionate lovers, mistaken identities, fighting, songs, and spectacles to keep the peanut gallery entertained), but he never sold out to merely creating worthless entertainment. Even his most superficial of plays contains much of depth and interest that is worthy of serious reflection. This is because Shakespeare himself was quite astute in viewing people and had a solid grounding in classical literature from the sacred (the Bible), to historical works in his own language (Holinshed's Chronicles), as well as classic literature in several languages (Latin, Italian, and French, at the very least).
It is a shame we in our modern society suffer from a lack of wise fools. That is not to say we do not have fools (I would consider myself one, and in various fashions I am sure others would agree--some in the friendlier sense of a Feste, others perhaps in a more Proverbial sense for those more hostile). Our society has no lack of people who speak and write as experts on subjects, but these people all seem to be motivated by some kind of positional ambition or some kind of ulterior motives and thus are difficult to trust. Instead of the reminders of King Lear's fool about the need for social justice, we have films made by politically ambitious actors ("Syriana") or dramatically challenged failed politicians ("An Inconvenient Truth"). In short, we have plenty of self-proclaimed wise men, and plenty of fools, but no wise fools whose truth-telling is divorced from political spin and the need to dissemble for one's own ambitions of wealth, power, and influence. The wise fool is necessary precisely because he is free of such concerns, and so can fulfill the request of David in Psalm 141:5 to provide stinging, but ultimately beneficial, truth. A wise fool specializes in constructive critism--never going overboard either with flattery or with railing and hostile accusations. Personally, it is a balance I myself wish to find--someday...
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Brief Father's Day Reflections....
This Father's Day Ihad the chance to see my best friend and his daughter, just over a year old, just learning how to walk, and very curious about her surroundings. As a frequent spectator of other people, it was interesting to see the trust that was there between parent and child. The little one would run out a slight distance (no more than fifteen feet) and then run back to be held safely. Such things are deeply touching, and a reflection of how life ought to be.
It was nice to spend father's day with my friends, even if my tennis game was cancelled on account of lightning. Spending time with friends (at any rate, not spending it alone in social misanthropy) is a valuable thing, and I am thankful to have friends. It is especially valuable on a day like Father's Day, where for the first time I must mourn the passing of my father, rather than buy him dryly humorous and somewhat mocking father's day cards that poke fun of the passage of time. That said, it is late, and though there is much I wish to say, there is no time, so I must bid farewell until another day.
P.S. Anonymous posting is now disabled. Nathan out.
It was nice to spend father's day with my friends, even if my tennis game was cancelled on account of lightning. Spending time with friends (at any rate, not spending it alone in social misanthropy) is a valuable thing, and I am thankful to have friends. It is especially valuable on a day like Father's Day, where for the first time I must mourn the passing of my father, rather than buy him dryly humorous and somewhat mocking father's day cards that poke fun of the passage of time. That said, it is late, and though there is much I wish to say, there is no time, so I must bid farewell until another day.
P.S. Anonymous posting is now disabled. Nathan out.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Coming From Where I'm From
In communication, it is vitally important to know one's audience. If one is going to communicate effectively to others, one has to know the hopes and fears of those one is speaking with (or writing to), what issues (and words) set them off, and the motivations and experiences of the audience. Often, what works very well for one person or group of people may fail miserably with a different audience. In speaking, or in targeted writing (e-mails, letters, etc.), one has a definite audience in mind, and should write or speak accordingly. In cases such as this blog, for example, it is notoriously difficult to know exactly who my audience is. In such a case as this I know my audience generally from comments (thank you, brave respondents) as well as from the occasional complaints, often relayed via third parties (I would hope I am not that unapproachable of a person). If it were possible, I would speak in a way that would be true to my own experiences as well as avoid causing offense to those whose generational persepctive and personal experiences do not match with my own. To a large extent, this is not possible, and so I leave room for those who take issue with my words to speak to me and request clarification or explanation.
I recently had a rather stern debate with an older person before services. Now, I am not the sort of person who goes looking for debates, but I do tend to be somewhat prickly when people begin insulting my generation (of which I am a vociferous and fierce defender). So a somewhat cranky older person decides to take a swipe at me and comment that he is fifty years older than me, asking me if I had anything to tell him. I asked him if his time was well spent, and he proceeded to go into a litany about how young people lack discline and a sense of obedience to their elders, and gave the rather tired comment that our generation feels overly entitled (while this may be true in large part, I concede, I have to say we learned from the best in the previous generation, made of up largely whiny middle aged people, including this gentleman, who themselves have felt entitled their entire lives, and show little sign of stopping now). In the end, as we verbally fenced about his military experiences (I decided to charitably pass on without mention on his litigious ways of suing and appealing for early social security and medicare so that he can receive his living and health insurance off of my diligent labor) and about the situations and conditions where obedience to God and man is necessary (we both agreed that obedience to God is not contingent on everything, and agreed that where man's commands contradict God's we are duty bound to disobey the orders of human beings), we were not particularly far apart as far as where we stood.
That is not to say that there were not levels of disagreement (he tended to look nostalgically on certain rather authoritarian figures that I feel much more ambivalent about, and he gave less room for legitimate dissent), but our differences were more about words than about beliefs. The way he expressed himself about the ideal younger generation struck me as seeking a mindless and robotic obedience, and no one should expect anything mindless about anything I do. "Because I said so" does not suffice as a reason, and it is good to some extent that the culture of deference is no more. That said, the general collapse of credibility among authority figures is not without extreme difficulties and major problems. It would be nice if leaders could be trusted, but as they cannot be trusted, we should act accordingly and not pretend otherwise. We must judge orders and the actions of others on a case-by-case basis, and cannot assume that others have our best interests at heart without proof.
It is here where the differences between us were most profound. Our differences in language (which were largely reflective of generational differences, but in my case colored rather strongly by personal experience) were reflective of the differences in trust between the two of us. His trust allows him to grant a wide latitude towards authority figures, where as my mistrust does not. To him, until proven otherwise, leaders exert their power for good. To me, until proven otherwise, those with power are an active threat to my well-being and security. Even to the extent that both of us agree that obedience to man's laws (and, less seriously, orders and requests from other authority figures like bosses and so forth) where they do not contradict God's laws (and both of us do agree on that point), the emphasis we choose to make and the level of trust forms a huge and rather suspicious gulf. He (and no doubt others who share his perspective) sees my suspicion (and that of other young people) as rebelliousness, a lack of discipline, and a lack of the honor and respect he feels entitled to.
As a young person, I am all to aware (if not particularly thrilled) with the fact that it is necessary for me to pay my dues and show myself worthy of respect, especially as there is a natural suspicion of older people for me as well as the age group I represent. That said, there are mutual expecations. I expect others to pay their dues as well. If older generations wish to be respected by young people, there are obligations they must meet as well. These include wise counsel (demonstrated not merely in words, but in actions, because I find it difficult in my life to find anyone who sets a positive example for me to follow in many areas). They also include opportunities for mentoring (again, I have a difficult time finding anyone who could be a worthy mentor). They also include a commitment to providing opportunities for responsibility (this is an area in which older generations have, in my experience, shown themselves worthy) as well as provide honor and respect for a job well done, rather than only insults and ridicule and censure. It is easier to give honor and respect when it is due when one receives it when it is due also.
It is difficult for me to convey my own life experiences in ways that older generations would understand, and the reverse is certainly true. Their life experiences and social environment is much different from my own, and I do not know if the gap can be bridged based on the current sort of communication that goes on. What they have as memories, often nostalgic memories, are for me historical knowledge that bring no joy and are often tinged with more than a little envy and regret. Both sides of the gulf have expectations of the other that are not fulfilled, and there seems to be little way of communicating the mutual unmet needs and wants across the distance of language and time unless both are willing to step halfway. When and if that happens, who can know? For now, though, it appears my interlocutor and I are stuck on opposite sides looking warily at each other, each waiting for the other to take the first step.
I recently had a rather stern debate with an older person before services. Now, I am not the sort of person who goes looking for debates, but I do tend to be somewhat prickly when people begin insulting my generation (of which I am a vociferous and fierce defender). So a somewhat cranky older person decides to take a swipe at me and comment that he is fifty years older than me, asking me if I had anything to tell him. I asked him if his time was well spent, and he proceeded to go into a litany about how young people lack discline and a sense of obedience to their elders, and gave the rather tired comment that our generation feels overly entitled (while this may be true in large part, I concede, I have to say we learned from the best in the previous generation, made of up largely whiny middle aged people, including this gentleman, who themselves have felt entitled their entire lives, and show little sign of stopping now). In the end, as we verbally fenced about his military experiences (I decided to charitably pass on without mention on his litigious ways of suing and appealing for early social security and medicare so that he can receive his living and health insurance off of my diligent labor) and about the situations and conditions where obedience to God and man is necessary (we both agreed that obedience to God is not contingent on everything, and agreed that where man's commands contradict God's we are duty bound to disobey the orders of human beings), we were not particularly far apart as far as where we stood.
That is not to say that there were not levels of disagreement (he tended to look nostalgically on certain rather authoritarian figures that I feel much more ambivalent about, and he gave less room for legitimate dissent), but our differences were more about words than about beliefs. The way he expressed himself about the ideal younger generation struck me as seeking a mindless and robotic obedience, and no one should expect anything mindless about anything I do. "Because I said so" does not suffice as a reason, and it is good to some extent that the culture of deference is no more. That said, the general collapse of credibility among authority figures is not without extreme difficulties and major problems. It would be nice if leaders could be trusted, but as they cannot be trusted, we should act accordingly and not pretend otherwise. We must judge orders and the actions of others on a case-by-case basis, and cannot assume that others have our best interests at heart without proof.
It is here where the differences between us were most profound. Our differences in language (which were largely reflective of generational differences, but in my case colored rather strongly by personal experience) were reflective of the differences in trust between the two of us. His trust allows him to grant a wide latitude towards authority figures, where as my mistrust does not. To him, until proven otherwise, leaders exert their power for good. To me, until proven otherwise, those with power are an active threat to my well-being and security. Even to the extent that both of us agree that obedience to man's laws (and, less seriously, orders and requests from other authority figures like bosses and so forth) where they do not contradict God's laws (and both of us do agree on that point), the emphasis we choose to make and the level of trust forms a huge and rather suspicious gulf. He (and no doubt others who share his perspective) sees my suspicion (and that of other young people) as rebelliousness, a lack of discipline, and a lack of the honor and respect he feels entitled to.
As a young person, I am all to aware (if not particularly thrilled) with the fact that it is necessary for me to pay my dues and show myself worthy of respect, especially as there is a natural suspicion of older people for me as well as the age group I represent. That said, there are mutual expecations. I expect others to pay their dues as well. If older generations wish to be respected by young people, there are obligations they must meet as well. These include wise counsel (demonstrated not merely in words, but in actions, because I find it difficult in my life to find anyone who sets a positive example for me to follow in many areas). They also include opportunities for mentoring (again, I have a difficult time finding anyone who could be a worthy mentor). They also include a commitment to providing opportunities for responsibility (this is an area in which older generations have, in my experience, shown themselves worthy) as well as provide honor and respect for a job well done, rather than only insults and ridicule and censure. It is easier to give honor and respect when it is due when one receives it when it is due also.
It is difficult for me to convey my own life experiences in ways that older generations would understand, and the reverse is certainly true. Their life experiences and social environment is much different from my own, and I do not know if the gap can be bridged based on the current sort of communication that goes on. What they have as memories, often nostalgic memories, are for me historical knowledge that bring no joy and are often tinged with more than a little envy and regret. Both sides of the gulf have expectations of the other that are not fulfilled, and there seems to be little way of communicating the mutual unmet needs and wants across the distance of language and time unless both are willing to step halfway. When and if that happens, who can know? For now, though, it appears my interlocutor and I are stuck on opposite sides looking warily at each other, each waiting for the other to take the first step.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Growing Up Grimaldi
The Grimaldis are one of Europe's oldest dynasties, little princlets of Monaco. Recently, though, this wealthy microstate (much smaller than the new nation of Montenegro) has fallen somewhat on hard times. When Prince Ranier died, his son Albert took the throne. Albert has never married, and thus has no legitimate heirs. However, he now has to add another illegitimate child to the list (his second confirmed one to date), a 14 year old Palm Springs girl (I've seen her birth certificate, but there is no point in naming her) who is the daughter of a former waitress who conceived the regal love-child while on vacation in Monaco. The mother of Albert's first recognized heir is a Togolese (that is, inhabitant of Togo, a slender West African nation next to Ghana) flight attendant.
It seems that Mr. Grimaldi has rather unusual state for his baby mamas (and I use this in the technical sense). Here he is, a multi-millionare, among the wealthiest rulers on the face of the earth, and yet his children do not come from a wife (he is unmarried), nor even mistresses, but rather flings. At least one admirable thing may be said about him--he is rather egalitarian in his tastes of women (he even apparently shows no racial prejudices, in that at least one of his children is bi-racial). At least these positive things may be said about him, because although he appears to have no problem fathering children, he does have difficulty (from all appearances) in finding the right kind of woman to settle down with.
There are apparently not that many classy and eligible ladies who would wish to marry a prince these days, I assume. His mother was Grace Kelly, an actress to be sure, but a classy and elegant one. Even beyond marriage, though, it appears that Prince Albert has a hard time finding someone worth dating or courting. I'm sure he could take the advice the rather fluffy rom-com (that is, romantic comedy) "The Prince and Me" and find a nice college girl to date. After all, his eldest child will, in the next few years, be looking at college, and will be flagrantly inelegible for financial aid now that she is the recognized daughter of the Prince of Monaco. So, while the Prince (we presume, or his handlers) is looking around at nice colleges for his firstborn daughter, perhaps he could find a classy lady for himself. After all, in this day and age, bastardy can get rather expensive.
I do feel bad for the young lady, though. She has all sorts of reporters and investigators around her school. Hopefully she can receive some sort of renumeration for what is likely to be a lot of unfriendly attention. As for the Prince, let us hope that his wild days are over. Child support is expensive, especialy when you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. One hopes that, even if belatedly, Albert will prove to be a good father. He certainly looks to have some practice to come in the near future in that regard.
It seems that Mr. Grimaldi has rather unusual state for his baby mamas (and I use this in the technical sense). Here he is, a multi-millionare, among the wealthiest rulers on the face of the earth, and yet his children do not come from a wife (he is unmarried), nor even mistresses, but rather flings. At least one admirable thing may be said about him--he is rather egalitarian in his tastes of women (he even apparently shows no racial prejudices, in that at least one of his children is bi-racial). At least these positive things may be said about him, because although he appears to have no problem fathering children, he does have difficulty (from all appearances) in finding the right kind of woman to settle down with.
There are apparently not that many classy and eligible ladies who would wish to marry a prince these days, I assume. His mother was Grace Kelly, an actress to be sure, but a classy and elegant one. Even beyond marriage, though, it appears that Prince Albert has a hard time finding someone worth dating or courting. I'm sure he could take the advice the rather fluffy rom-com (that is, romantic comedy) "The Prince and Me" and find a nice college girl to date. After all, his eldest child will, in the next few years, be looking at college, and will be flagrantly inelegible for financial aid now that she is the recognized daughter of the Prince of Monaco. So, while the Prince (we presume, or his handlers) is looking around at nice colleges for his firstborn daughter, perhaps he could find a classy lady for himself. After all, in this day and age, bastardy can get rather expensive.
I do feel bad for the young lady, though. She has all sorts of reporters and investigators around her school. Hopefully she can receive some sort of renumeration for what is likely to be a lot of unfriendly attention. As for the Prince, let us hope that his wild days are over. Child support is expensive, especialy when you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars. One hopes that, even if belatedly, Albert will prove to be a good father. He certainly looks to have some practice to come in the near future in that regard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
