paxfeline

the tip of a 2000+ year-old iceberg

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:49:04 GMT

I do not believe that Jesus Christ, though Christ he may be, ever claimed to be innately any more divine than anyone else. I have done an admittedly small amount of research, but I am pretty near convinced; I welcome any countering claims. I like to think that I came at the question fairly open-minded to finding either answer firmly enunciated in the Gospels, but I did not. I remember once, not long ago, in reading a short article on why Jesus was "superior to Muhammad" (peace and blessing be upon him), I saw the assertion that Jesus claimed to be God. So it begs the question. Being only partially familiarized with the Gospels, I was aware the Jesus often referred to himself as the "son of man;" which was also, I hear, a phrase that appears in the Jewish Bible. So I looked it up online, and found some interesting and opposing articles. To wit: At Jewish Encyclodia.com (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=965&letter=S) and Tekton.org (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html).

I happened to read the article from the Jewish encyclopedia first. After that, the other article, titled "The Divine Claims of Jesus: The 'Son of Man' Title" was unmoving. As you might imagine from the title, it hinges a lot on the phrase "son of man" to assert Jesus' divinity, and it seems unfounded. It dismisses the idea that the phrase means, "anyone" (to a greater or lesser degree), even though, to quote the Jewish encyclopedia:
"The rendering for the Hebrew 'ben adam,' [son of man] applied to mankind in general, as opposed to and distinct from non-human relationship; expressing also the larger, unlimited implications of humanity as differentiated from limited (e.g., national) forms and aspects of human life."

Going back to the larger question, the Tecktonics site has a conceit early on, disguised as just so much minutia:
"A related argument in this regard is that only John's Gospel portrays Jesus as claiming to be God" (related to suggesting, "That Jesus either a) never made any claims to deity; b) that His claims were altered by His biased followers; or, c) His claims were misunderstood by His ignorant followers").
I was shocked to read that. So can we ignore John's gospel? I will, thanks. The Christian literature I mentioned earlier also stressed Jesus' fulfillment of various prophecies, a point which I am willing to concede at the time being. If this continuity and clarity jazz is so damn important, how could it be that the three Gospels that actually mesh together would be the defective ones? That test is too clever for me. I think there are far better reasons to discount John, but I don't know them so I won't try to rely on them.

So what's my point? The normal Christian reading of "son of man" as being self-reference on Jesus' part, and a claim of divinity, is far more likely the more mundane... "son of man" or, "people" for short. Anybody. Everybody. Jesus may be the Light and the Way, even the son of God; but I think that "the son of man" probably meant, to a Jew at the time [read: Jesus], "mankind in general ... expressing also the larger, unlimited implications of humanity as differentiated from limited forms and aspects of human life." I think there was a larger, deeper message that somehow got lost; a call to unlimited, infinite, spiritual life. Jesus hated the corrupt religious system run by the Pharisees. He was a radical, with some radical assertions to make. From the Tek. article on "Son of Man," quoth:

'A considerable factor in Jesus' words is his comment that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God. ... In a study of the matter in Blashpemy and Exaltation in Judaism [203ff], Darrell Bock discusses parallels in Jewish texts and offers these conclusions:

* In the literature of Judiasm of the period, "a proximate seating next to God" i.e., in His presence) "might be considered for a privileged few, either a few universally acknowledged greats" (Moses, Adam, etc.) "of the past or the future eschatological figure of judgment" (the Son of Man of Daniel 7). But such honor "would never be comtemplated by the leadership for a humble, rural Galilean, preacher like Jesus." Being seated in God's presence (like being seated during the National Anthem) by itself was audacious, though not necessarily a claim to divinity, until we add:
* The right hand reference, which means in this culture that Jesus is claiming to be seated by God "in a way that shares the highest honor with him." In other texts, the "right hand of God" is the place where the splendor and majeesty of God comes from (Testament of Job), and the righteous are honored by being allowed to stand (not sit!) at the right hand of God.'

Consider the inherent hypocrisy in religious belief that gave "a privileged few" (humans though, mind you), only, the privilege of being in God's presence. From my reading of all this, the message comes through something like this: Every person has the opportunity to sit at the right hand of God.

...With the addendum of, "in a Jewish religious context" which, I have heard it said, is rather vague on beliefs re: Heaven and Hell; (and having no substantiation thereof) I will leave it at that for tonight.

(Please don't hurt me.)

letter to the editor

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:32:03 GMT

I read a letter to the editor in our local paper railing against immigration and multiculturalism -- so I wrote this. (I tentatively plan on sending it in.)

Since the founding of the Republic, we have been a national of immigrants. The first immigrants were almost exclusively white Christians from Europe -- but we do not think of ourselves as a nation of white, European Christians. Our founding fathers had slaves, yet we are not a nation which says that Africans are less than human, today. Until the twenties women did not have the right to vote, yet we do not see ourselves as a rigidly patriarchal nation today.

America has never been a national obsessed with the past. When could we have developed such a nostalgia? We are a young country. But our history is chalk full of lessons that today are a part of our national identity. Early settlers left Britain in part to escape religious and cultural persecution -- and we are a country that as enshrined religious tolerance as a pillar of our existence.

Today it's an accepted sad fact of history that America has been intolerant; and we have always looked back on these episodes with a great sense of shame and hope that we will never repeat those mistakes. Slavery, the persecution of the Native American population, the restriction of voting to only white, land-owning males, and the detention of Japanese-Americans during WWII are just a few examples. But America never has been obsessed with the past.

We're obsessed with the future; with the American dream. What can that possibly mean? It's our dream. And by "our" I mean that it's not just mine, and it's not just yours. It isn't just the dream of the American soldier, nor is it just the dream of the Iraqi child -- but it is all of those things and more. The American dream is our dream; the same visions that danced before the sleeping eyes of the pioneers sailing across the Atlantic, or forging west -- it is the dream of freedom, and of a better future for our children.

For over two-hundred and fifty years, America has been a beacon of hope and freedom to the world. I am so proud of America for its wonderful generosity, open-mindedness, kindness, charity and virtue. I am also saddened by the pain we have caused in the world, which above all seems to come from a loss of respect for the values on which our country was founded and has benefitted for centuries. We have not been a stagnant country, but instead we are a country that's mad as hell at inequality, and we're willing to stand up and shout it, damnit! We are the people who will fight for justice and the welfare of our neighbors (whoever they may be), to secure the Blessings of Liberty for future generations.

For over two-hundred and fifty years, America has welcomed people; not based on their ethnicity, religion, language or origin, but on a shared set of beliefs and aspirations. We are stronger, not weaker, for our openness and acceptance. We should acknowledge and celebrate that strength gained through diversity. Diversity of course also means that not everyone will agree. What's more important: the symbols of freedom and American nationalism, or the actual freedom and nationalism those symbols represent? An open society can not be superficial about selecting who gets to enter; such matters should not be based on the acceptance of petty slogans or cartoon characters.

If you trust/believe in God, that is wonderful and sacred. In America, no one will tell you to believe or not, what to believe, or how to express your belief. We know that faith is an Ultimately personal expression, which cannot and should not be meddled with by politicians. The flag is a powerful and meaningful symbol -- but it is only a symbol; as is Uncle Sam and the rest of our secular state religion. These things represent, not constitute, our democracy and the value on which it is built. Democracy and multiculturalism is never easy. It demands that its citizens transcend their differences to promote real equality and justice, in actuality as well as in words.

We can't close our eyes, ears... or borders. To do so would be isolationist and ignorant. We are an open and free society. We may want to keep America exactly the way it is -- or revert to some ideal past. We can't, and we shouldn't try. To be true to the ideals of America, I believe that we have to really embrace those ideals of openness and welcoming; and know that justice, equality and freedom change the world for the better -- the world, nor all thee terrorists therein, cannot change or muddy those ideals.

you say 'G-d', I say...

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:59:41 GMT

It is interesting to me that some people say Muslims worship the same God that Christians and Jews worship -- while quickly adding that they differ in several fundamental ways. It has been pointed out to me several times that Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. As one source put it, "it is the same word that Arabic Christians and Jews use for God." It is the seeming reliance on the shared word as an underlying unifier that I find amusing.

I think that there are far more fundamental and interesting similarities between the religions. Most obvious is the fact that Islam stresses its position in the Abrahamic succession of prophets. It seems to me that this should entail a certain impetus to familiarize oneself with the teachings of that succession. Islam stresses its monotheism, and that is the basic connection between it and the other monotheistic religions, that I think qualifies them as talking about the same 'God' (at least in the eyes of the three religions' proponents, if they indeed believe it).

Islam means 'surrender to the will of God', which Muhammad said was the same religion brought by all the prophets. Muhammad is the final, 'seal', of the prophets. One of the most important things revealed to Muhammad, and exalted in the Qur'an, is 'God-consciousness'; necessary for true worship of God, the purpose of humanity on earth. From http://www.iad.org/books/WAMY5.html:

The Qur'an mentions God-consciousness as the highest quality of a Muslim: The most honorable among you in the sight of God is the one who is most God-conscious. (49:13) Humility modesty control of passions and desires, truthfulness, integrity, patience, steadfastness, and fulfilling one's promises-all of these are moral values that are mentioned manyh times in the Qur'an: And God loves those who are firm and steadfast (3:14Q. The Qur'an also tells Muslims:

And vie with one another to attain your Sustainer's forgiveness and a Paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, which awaits the God conscious, who spend for charity in time of plenty and in time of hardship, and restrain their anger and pardon their fellow men, for God loves those who do good. (3:133134)

Establish regular prayer, enjoin what is just, and forbid what is wrong; and bear patiently whatever may befall you;for this is true constancy And do not swell your (cheek with puce) at men, nor walk in insolence on the earth, for God does not love any man proud and boastful. And be moderate in your pace and lower your voice;for the harshest of sounds, indeed, is the braying of the ass. (31:18-19)

(From http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=14): "Islam makes it clear that all human acts are acts of worship if they are done for God alone and in accordance to His Divine Law. As such, worship in Islam is not limited to religious rituals. The teachings of Islam act as a mercy and a healing for the human soul". Aside from the moral injunctions, there is a little in the above and in the term, God-consciousness -- along with some scraps of knowledge about Buddhism -- to suggest to me a relationship to mediation.

I am very much a fledgling student of religion, but I have the amazing advantage of being surrounded by a number of wonderful sources of wisdom and knowledge. Until supplanted by firmer knowledge from reading, some of my understanding of the more esoteric aspects of Buddhism come from an interview with a man named Ken Wilber. The term God-consciousness is strikingly (to me) apt for his person take on Buddhism (as interpreted by myself based on a single interview); specifically in that the process of meditation (the cultivation of consciousness, or awareness) can lead to an amazing realization.

An amazing realization which I am having trouble describing. But which, I am putting forth, [and which I think Ken might say,] could in some way be synonymous with 'God'. God is a nice handy noun that we can toss around pretty easily; but 'satori' or enlightenment through mediation, and the actual essence of God inescapably share the property that they are basically incomprehensible, or at least it would be an almost absurdly fruitless activity to try to convey their essence in words. We say things like, God is Love. But I personally accept that fact that 'God' as an entity is something that would be far beyond the comprehension of my puny mortal brain.

Buddhist meditate because the cultivation of awareness, and other types of more 'guided' [poor word choice] meditations (which I would call a type of prayer), can help balance and pacify turbulent emotions. Long-term meditation has many mental and spiritual rewards. (I have no meditation regiment.) I submit that the cultivation of God-consciousness in Islam is in a fundamental way the same process monks go through in mediation. Especially notice from the longer quote, "control of passions and desires." I would like to see more of what the Qur'an has to say about God-consciousness, especially along those lines; it sounds very much like 'mindfulness', (a most basic) meditation, to me.

'Namaste' could be roughly translated, the Divine in me, greets/bows to the Divine in you. (http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/namaste1.html an article longer than it needs to be.) God is both above and within us. That's my view anyway. What'd you think you'd get; it is my blog. Peace and blessings be upon all.

on separation and unity

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:28:50 GMT

Humans like to name things. It's a fundamental part of speech, and conscious/rational thought. Naming things is an act of separation. We create groups and categories, which divide up the population and reality at large.

But to create a distinction, there has to be a fundamental connection present. To debate something, even an absolutely contentious subject, the people talking have to share some set of values on which they can base their arguments, otherwise the conversation is pointless, and basically impossible.

Also, to say, 'I am Christian and you are Muslim' acknowledges that we are both religious believers. To name a thing, it has to come in to being -- so before it was, or was part of, another thing, and/or it was combined with other things (themselves perhaps parts of other wholes) into a new whole. Or, as with a category, things are differentiated by a particular attribute or characteristic -- again there is an underlying unity which can be overlooked by exaggerating perceived differences. (E.g. Christianity and Catholicism.)

So at what point in the process of separation and recombination create a new entity? We could just as easily look at it in reverse and say, these things really aren't different. (Or at least, share a fundamental unity.) The fact that I'm sitting on a chair which is fully-formed, wood cut and put together so that it now looks like the chair I am sitting on; that doesn't mean its essence is other than the wood/the tree(s) from which is was created.

There's another matter, which is of creating something ethereal (which may also be manifest) -- such as song or a picture or a poem. This I would call really a manifestation or an extension of our selves, our consciousness. They have an existence not unlike the dancing patterns of energy and biology in which our consciousness resides. I might create a poem, and it could be the incarnation of a feeling or thought in my consciousness. It has a name and an existence which then sort of branches out into reality; but it still has an essence which is connected to, and indeed of, my own essence.

Tracing distinctions back to their point of separation works pretty graphically well with evolution. I and our cat have been on divergent evolutionary paths for millennia, but if traced back far enough, there was a point up to which we were one -- we shared a great common ancestor.

More immediately we could consider the unborn child, from sperm and egg to child in the womb. When the genetic material of the two entities mingle, two separate beings form one -- but the genetic code donated by each parent is specific. And as the individual grows, specific traits could be (and are) attributed to particular genetic factors; particular genetic traits which are concrete extensions of our parents' genetic existence.

We are stardust. We are starlight for that matter. Einstein showed us that energy and matter are one. We know all about the cycle of life, and the base of the process is out in the stars. That sunlight that 'powers our bodies' -- flows through our heads, pumps through our muscles -- is created from the same bit of dust that was next to you at the big bang, going through a nuclear reaction millions of light-years away. And just as energy circulates through the world and indeed the universe, so does matter. Every bit of our existence.

People talk about, say, breathing a little of the air that some famous person from the past breathed. We're obsessed with tracing bits of 'separation' through existence, like a molecule of air that thousands of years ago was in the lung of a Roman emperor, which is still floating around today. Could you imagine the flow of energy, down from sunlight, into grain, through the food-chain, into a human body? And all the places it would flow out to. I can't really. I just know it would be crazy. Like a quantum-physical view of reality, it almost becomes a soup of interactions.

Beyond the flow of matter and energy, above or transcending it, are our interactions. Such as art, and communication of all kinds; the transmission of information and emotion, or indeed physical interactions. Like the soup of matter/energy interactions, this web of interactions is like a gigantic, interwoven system which is flowing through time. In the matter/energy system, we could imagine how the matter/energy that we identify as an 'object' or a 'thing' flows through that thing, or how what the name represents drifts over time.

Imagining this web of interactions through time, to me, emphasizes how easy it is to look at in reverse. And if you do, it's easy to consider it on a cosmic scale and the fact that, at the Big Bang, all matter and energy was packed into a tiny space. Just here on Earth, energy and matter are constantly being recycled; cycled around.

In gross physical terms, there would be a point at which previously the matter that constitutes my body was mingled with the matter that constitutes any other body. At some point in the distant past, the genetic map of my ancestors' was the same as [the ancestors' of] any other creature on Earth. Different systems -- matter, energy, emotion, potential -- all constantly bouncing against each other, constantly fluctuating: an eternally chaotic, unified milieu against which we impose names and separation.

Bush pushes for same-sex marriage ban amendment

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:21:35 GMT

Let's listen, shall we? In case you don't like Bush, he reminded of us all of what arguably our greatest President every (at least with respect to marriage), Bill Clinton, did.

"Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Ah, a legal union. OK, I'll hang on to that point and we'll consider briefly the times Bush asserts, pretty vacuously, that marriage has been a highly revered or unchanging part of our culture, basically forever.

"For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure."

I just flat out don't buy it. The last sentence is laughably meaningless. If we accept the right of gay people to marry, of course that will change the landscape of family relationships. Lots of things have that I don't need to run through, but might mention a few obvious examples: single-parent homes, foster homes, polygamist communities, and step-parenting. Diversity has never hurt this country, except when we fight against it.

Families aren't about the formal structure of a marriage, they're about the love that exists within a community of people. What defines a strong family? A strong family, in my opinion, is one that is nurturing to its members, and creates an environment in which all the members, but particularly of course young children, can grow up in a positive way.

The idea that you can follow a certain set of rules and have a good marriage and a happy life is just absurd. There's no formula to a better life; there's only personal interaction and connection. Bush just reinforced the exact sort of fantasy that I railed against in my last blog.

"The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage."

Ahh, the defining promise of a life. How beautiful. So, as long as I find a chick (er that is, if I'm a guy) and get married, I'll be set? Bitchin'! I knew there a reason I took God along as my copilot. (Lord knows I wouldn't let him drive.)

So I can sign a piece of paper, be legally married, and then I'll be happy. Awesome. I'm so happy that, as he said, it's a legal union; and that I live in a country where I'm protected from religious persecution.

"If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened "

The meaning is lost? What is he afraid, judges are going to decree that 'marriage' is now a new term for 'hot-dog'? Although he goes on and on about the threat that the institution of marriage is facing, he does not say what that threat is, just what it is supposedly going to do. (Change the meaning of the word marriage; destroy the fabric of society. Does that really follow?) There seems to be a 'point' emerging here that he danced precariously around: allowing gays to marry would destroy the institution of marriage. Really, Mr. President? Are you that much of a homophobe?

I've always been incensed with the so called 'debate' because government deals in law, not religion; and banning gay marriage on cultural and religious grounds is so offensive I could spit. I know in my gut that 50 or 100 years from now we'll be grappling with the history of our gay-rights struggle with the same kind of trouble that today we grapple with slavery and the oppression of women.

Hmmm, here's what physicists call a thought-experiment: If voting first meant that white, land-owning men could cast a ballot in an election, did the institution of voting disintegrate -- or indeed, did the concept of voting actually change? -- when we allowed more people to participate in it?

Maybe so.
If so, it got better. A lot better.

if capitalism and heterosexual marriage are the foundations of our society, then it is going to...

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:04:56 GMT

if capitalism and heterosexual marriage are the foundations of our society, then it is going to collapse (and I feel fine)

A few interesting trends to consider: The marriage rate is going down, and the divorce rate is going up. In addition, people are increasingly less content in their marriages. The latter trends are discussed in an article quoted here (http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/1999-July/msg00003.html).

I put it to you that this is a function of capitalism. In certain circles, I think it's fairly well accepted that capitalism as an economy makes people less happy. In a capitalist economy, companies have to survive by selling products, and in order to make you buy them, they have to make you think you need them. The only things you need are things are deficient of, therefor advertising generally makes people feel as though they are somehow "less" without their product.

This has a few implications. It makes people less content, because they are constantly being told that they need things which most often they cannot have. Another effect of capitalism is of course the necessary pursuit of money. A capitalism economy will be constantly leaving people behind, because if it didn't then monetary status would begin to lose meaning. I think we all accept that the products we buy are manufactured at costs magnitudes less than what we pay for them, often at the expense of poorly paid employees overseas (or down south...).

It's based on the necessity of producing revenue, and the pursuit of the dollar will always have a corrupting influence on every other piece of society. Greed. And not only is it a moral [oops, meant to type "mortal"] sin, it will ultimately make you unhappy. Either you will be unhappy because you can't attain what you want; or you will never be satisfied with what you have. *One* million is never enough.

So even as our 'standard of living' rises, we become less and less content, in part because we are forced to work more and more to afford the crap that we want or need. And the effect basically soaks into the culture. Even as children we are put upon by money, because the things we want cost money we ain't got. As we grow, our aims get higher (as we are poisoned with messages that we are defficient in a million ways, large and small), and subsequently our ability to fulfill our desires goes down.

So were do we look for *real* happiness? Sex. Or the politically correct term: "marriage." Even more than that, the word 'marriage' has this whole chivalrous, 'courtly love' feel about it (well to me anyway, and I'm aware it's wrong [re: the actual meaning of courtly love]). But it's pretty perverse, because it's as though people expect to get those things from marriage, instead of putting them in to marriage. Whatever the reason, marriage has taken on mythic proportions I think, representing some secret portal to happiness. As the Beach Boys said, "We could be married,/ Then we'd be happy." Would we? How sad is it that the plunging marriage rate is still accompanied by a rising divorce rate?

A lot of Christians I'm afraid have issues with sexuality and marriage. (And other people too of course.) Sexuality is terribly perverted by capitalist mass media advertising, it's really not that surprising. I'm a little surprised anybody manages to navigate it with their psyche in tact, but maybe I'm just over-fragile in that respect. But I'm afraid the Christian emphasis on marriage as necessary for sex has at least two effects: One is to make young Christians who have sex feel guilty or worse, and the other is seen in the high divorce rates: people rushing into marriages because they see it as a way to justify their sexual relationships.

Along with all the ickiness introduced with capitalism, I'm really not surprised that our society is as sickening as it is to me, at times. But I think we need to re-evaluate some of these things. I don't think capitalism or 'marriage' in the image of the Christian-right are founding principals of our republic; I think justice and religious equality are.

I've been David Newberry. Good night.

is that a poem?

Mon, 29 May 2006 11:13:45 GMT

I really don't have any problem with Christians.

Just the ones who try to tell the other ones what to believe.

-----

there was once a great teacher
with great strength of character, who rejected the mores of his society
and who seemed to act from a deep and enigmatic wisdom.
often he would tell stories to his flock, for they hungered for his wisdom.

and he told them that men would come in his name;
and some would say that they are him.
and he warned them not to be deceived;
yet generations of men have come in his name,
and generations of men have been deceived.
and some said, "I am him."
and when some people laughed, they realized their mistake,
and they simply said, "I know him."
and many were deceived by them.

the truth is not for men who worship false prophets;
the truth is only for the disciples.
for many have come in his name,
but only the man who tries to remove the plank from his own eye
can ever dream of seeing the truth.
and any man can cultivate his relationship with god;
for only the man who looks into his own soul
can find out the nature of the plank
that separates the saved from the damned.

the parable of the sea

Thu, 25 May 2006 11:55:19 GMT

I'm thinking about starting my own religion. So I figured I better start talking in parables.

three brothers set out on missions of exploration, in hopes of finding a life for themselves.

the first set out by land. for he had a fear of drowning; and only crossed small stretches of water in a sturdy boat.
he lived long, but never found a companion; and remained a nomad all his life.

the second set out to sea.
he was careless, and took a poorly built and equipped ship out to sea.
he rowed a little, and decided it was worth the work rowing to get to his destination; though he wasn't sure where it was.
but after rowing a short time, the wind picked up and pulled his craft quickly and pleasantly along.
the wind took him far in the direction he wanted to go.
when the wind was high, he enjoyed the sensation of the ship crashing through the waves -- so he praised the wind.
but soon the wind began to die down, and then pull him in the opposite direction -- so he cursed the wind.
he learned to use the wind when it came, and row when it failed him.
he went far, but only when the wind was high, when he manned the sail.
while he rowed he was morose, and prayed for the wind or cursed the wind..
he was delighted when the wind came, and dejected when it was left.
eventually he no longer rowed; without the wind and the sensation of the crashing waves, he was morose.
he was content to wander half-aware where the wind would blow him, lulled by the ebb and flow of the sea.
happiest when the wind picked up and pulled him (he knew not in what direction),
he eventually died in a thunderstorm, no longer even aware he was at sea.

the third also set out to sea.
having slightly more forethought, he learned the parameters of a good boat, and of operating it well.
he rowed a little, and found it difficult, but manageable.
using the sail properly, he was able to sail much faster than his brother;
for he also loved the thrill of racing through the waves; and the respite from rowing.
he did not row constantly, but took breaks.
and sometimes he let the wind take him off course, in his pursuit of bigger waves.
he was sad when the wind left, and morose when he had the row;
but he had a goal towards which he was headed, so he kept rowing,
and did not curse the wind in his absence,
nor the rowing which he had to do when the wind was weak or against him.
eventually he reached what he thought might be his destination.
while he was there he met a girl, and he decided to live there.

it was a beautiful town, on the ocean
and the man often went out on the ocean to race in the winds
but was always called home by the siren of life on land; his family and friends..
one day late in life, the man's nomadic brother wandered into their little village;
which as it turned out wasn't very far from their childhood home after all.

Baghdad E.R.

Tue, 23 May 2006 06:29:57 GMT

So, I watched Baghdad E.R. My dad ordered HBO (just for this month), so that we could watch it. I wasn't particularly enthused about watching it, but my dad pointed out that it was likely to be part of the evolving debate on the Iraq war; so I decided that it was worth seeing for that reason. It was hard to watch for sure. Yeah, I cried a little... you wanna fight about it? Anyway, this is sortof my first reaction.

I don't think about it.
(The blood.)
Don't think about it.
(The pain)
Can't look at them...
The limbs.
Can't see them,
The faces.
Can't feel it;
The pain.

Nameless soldier,
Number One Gillion,
    Two-thousand and
    thirty-five.
He comes with a hole
    for your hand,
In his back.
Exsanguination:
"The action of draining a person,
    animal,
    or organ
of blood."

I looked over--
I know
His face--
I know
His face...
I saw it too.

No face.
I can't see it.
He didn't have a face.

Aren't we trying to help?
What did we do wrong?
You did nothing wrong.
But we did something wrong.
War is a failure
    of the most profoundly sad kind.

But I can't let myself feel it.

Some fun Monday news

Mon, 15 May 2006 21:41:57 GMT

From the ABC News blog...
"the government is tracking the phone numbers [they] call in an effort to root out confidential sources.".

Fun.

Christians

Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:07:06 GMT

my gripe isn't with Christianity, it's with some Christians... and the motherfucker behind this bullshit:

So, I go to a Christian website, and sent a kinda angry letter in response to an article, and the next day, I get this (at the address I used for them to reply). OK...? Somebody's gonna be trapped in purgatory an extra day longer for this.

yeah, so...

Thu, 30 Jun 2005 01:03:06 GMT

fuck myspace. That's all.

Oh, um... LiveJournal, thanks ...for not being like myspace.

I'm thinking about data

Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:11:57 GMT

Hmmm. So, this is just random rambling. Somehow I've always been fascinated by data. "Information." Parsing. And in another vein, abstraction. The random thought I had that sparked this entry was something along these lines: Isn't there a connection between abstraction and the continuum of infinite cardinalities? Thus: Whereas a concrete statement gives you a discrete amount of information: 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. Abstract it, and suddenly you have a theoretically infinite amount of data: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Hmmm...

I've been so fascinated with the transfinite cardinalities... but the other night I found myself wondering why. In many ways, it's totally esoteric, there isn't really an infinite amount of anything in the universe... except it now occurs to me... data? Interesting...

"For millions of years,
Mankind lived... just like the animals.
Then something happened,
Which unleashed the power of our imagination:
We learned to talk."

thesauruses

Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:24:12 GMT

I need a thesaurus that understands continuums. OK, I want a word. It's like rough or choppy, but less turbulent. Why can't I look that up with the aid of a com-pu-tor?

physics

Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:48:59 GMT

I just found out that in physics equations that deal with special relativity, the unit for the time dimension is c, the speed of light(!?).
See Special relativity, and c.

my new computer

Thu, 16 Jun 2005 04:11:44 GMT

I'm sitting at it, typing, and oh yes, it is sweet. Did I tell you it was a 20" monitor? I didn't really know what that meant until we opened the box. Apparently it means a monitor that I can't see entirely when I look at it. It's amazing and beautiful. I thought it had an airport card in it, but I guess the refurbished ones don't? I'll get one for it, but for now it's sitting next to the plotter, so that it can be plugged directly into the Ethernet switch. Good thing that last port was open. :P But wireless... take me away.

iMac G5, 1.8 Ghz, 20" monitor, 160 GB HD, 512 MB RAM (soon to be 1.5 GB). Heh heh heh.

I always forget what I was going to write

Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:08:30 GMT

Error
Must provide entry text

Oh yeah.

So, I wanted to write in this email to a friend of mine:
Donations (because he sends me money for burning him CDs) are always appreciated, but I must warn you that donating money to me is like donating money to a large corporation, or a hobo... you never know what it'd go to. (More like a hobo though, really.)

Sarah, you posted a comment on the wrong damn entry. And don't tell me know don't know who David Gilmore is. I might have gotten the other song wrong though, but it sure sounds like something from the Wall... me check.

something else I was going to write here.