"I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid. "
Jack Sparrow's onto something. It's about unpredictability. Some people get the wrong idea about being unpredictable. They think that you need to do the unexpected at all times. But that's not quite right. Because, as Jack said, there comes a time where you can be expected to do the unexpected. To be truly unpredictable, you sometimes need to do exactly what is expected, because it's exactly what an unpredictable person wouldn't be expected to do.
This is part of the problem I have with people who do everything they can do to be different, unique. You sacrifice your unique tastes to for a sense of uniqueness that isn't entirely yours. Your taste is still dictated by the current trends.
It's similar with rebellion. So often, kids formerly under the authority (often strict authority) of their parents find the freedom brought by a certain age or situation extremely liberating. Seeking to throw off the vestiges of their parents' restrictions, they evaluate their actions through a lens of liberation. If their parents might disapprove of a certain action, they lean in that direction, even if their personal ideals or preferences would disagree with it. These people are delusional. They think they have found true freedom in identity, but their actions are still dictated by what their parents approve of.
To be truly unpredictable, truly unique, truly liberated in identity, it takes something different. To be unpredictable, you need to worry not so much about being unpredictable, but about what the moment dictates you do. To be truly unique, you need to do/wear/listen to what you personally like, even if that means your taste aligns with mainstream preference. To be truly liberated in identity, you must often do exactly what your parents or others would approve of.
Don't be so afraid of being what you don't want to be that you avoid doing what makes you what you want to be because it looks like you are what you don't want to be. Be predictable. It's unpredictable.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Germany
I was struggling to find an intro for my portfolio project reflection paper (a Germany assignment due tomorrow), so I wrote down a bunch of things that came to mind. It explains things better than I could in a couple of hours.
What I liked about Germany: I experienced German culture. I got to hang out with a bunch of friends. I lived with my friends. I made new friends. I experienced what I learned in class. It was an adventure. I learned more about myself. I realized that I have a lot more to learn about myself. I came to love the Decemberists. I ate döners. I ate Nutella and apricot jam. I drank Mezzo Mix. I drank not a drop of drinking fountain water. I was free. It was an escape. It was a break. I worked. I studied. I washed dishes. 9-hour plane rides. 3-hour car rides. 10-minute bike rides. 5-minute walks. Coloretto, Pastiche, Resistance. I told the truth. I lied. I won. I lost. I felt death. I lived.
What I liked about Germany: I experienced German culture. I got to hang out with a bunch of friends. I lived with my friends. I made new friends. I experienced what I learned in class. It was an adventure. I learned more about myself. I realized that I have a lot more to learn about myself. I came to love the Decemberists. I ate döners. I ate Nutella and apricot jam. I drank Mezzo Mix. I drank not a drop of drinking fountain water. I was free. It was an escape. It was a break. I worked. I studied. I washed dishes. 9-hour plane rides. 3-hour car rides. 10-minute bike rides. 5-minute walks. Coloretto, Pastiche, Resistance. I told the truth. I lied. I won. I lost. I felt death. I lived.
Brain Crack
So, there's this guy on YouTube, and he mentioned an term this other guy devised: brain crack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24prm3XjVgk
As he mentions in the video, brain crack is when you have an idea, especially one that you really like. However, rather than getting it out of your head and doing it, you turn it over a million times in your head, trying to perfect it. You do this so much that you end up becoming addicted to this "brain crack" and never put your "perfect" idea into action. Huh... creativity coming back again. Potential video for the class? B-Shak might like this.
Anyway, I think I might be addicted to brain crack... big time. So, in an effort to recover from my addiction (and at the same time getting my fix), here's a question for you: Is it better to live in a reality which you know to be false than to take drastic actions to discover a reality that will, in essence, send you into non-existence?
This has been shifting in my head for quite a while now. It's an idea for a story I have. Originally, it was going to be a story in which the characters gradually recognized the existence of the author and begin to rebel against him/her. But, over many fixes of brain crack, it changed into something entirely different (though I still like the other idea)--a story in which a character lives in a reality that is actually unreality and his journey to discover actual truth/reality. It draws on ideas from Descartes and the skeptics--all those who said we must start with doubt--as well as The Matrix, Inception, The Truman Show, 1948, Fahrenheit 451, and a host of other sources.
My basic point is this: When confronted with the truth--that reality is not reality at all--a person will strive to find true reality. It's the basis of a lot of movies. In Inception, the question of whether the totem topples or not, and whether that matters. In The Matrix, it's choosing the red pill. That Neo somehow always knew that things weren't right (that's a topic you see in a lot of places). The Truman Show and his similar search for the "real." 1948 and the importance of truth.
What I really want to drive home is the idea that the truth is of extreme importance. That one will go to great lengths to know it. I also want to include an aspect a lot of sci-fi shows and movies have used--that the character somehow knows things weren't quite right, and that it mattered.
Maybe one day I will be rehabilitated, saved from my addiction to brain crack. But it means failure. It means letdown and disappointment. But it also means progress. Bring it on...
As he mentions in the video, brain crack is when you have an idea, especially one that you really like. However, rather than getting it out of your head and doing it, you turn it over a million times in your head, trying to perfect it. You do this so much that you end up becoming addicted to this "brain crack" and never put your "perfect" idea into action. Huh... creativity coming back again. Potential video for the class? B-Shak might like this.
Anyway, I think I might be addicted to brain crack... big time. So, in an effort to recover from my addiction (and at the same time getting my fix), here's a question for you: Is it better to live in a reality which you know to be false than to take drastic actions to discover a reality that will, in essence, send you into non-existence?
This has been shifting in my head for quite a while now. It's an idea for a story I have. Originally, it was going to be a story in which the characters gradually recognized the existence of the author and begin to rebel against him/her. But, over many fixes of brain crack, it changed into something entirely different (though I still like the other idea)--a story in which a character lives in a reality that is actually unreality and his journey to discover actual truth/reality. It draws on ideas from Descartes and the skeptics--all those who said we must start with doubt--as well as The Matrix, Inception, The Truman Show, 1948, Fahrenheit 451, and a host of other sources.
My basic point is this: When confronted with the truth--that reality is not reality at all--a person will strive to find true reality. It's the basis of a lot of movies. In Inception, the question of whether the totem topples or not, and whether that matters. In The Matrix, it's choosing the red pill. That Neo somehow always knew that things weren't right (that's a topic you see in a lot of places). The Truman Show and his similar search for the "real." 1948 and the importance of truth.
What I really want to drive home is the idea that the truth is of extreme importance. That one will go to great lengths to know it. I also want to include an aspect a lot of sci-fi shows and movies have used--that the character somehow knows things weren't quite right, and that it mattered.
Maybe one day I will be rehabilitated, saved from my addiction to brain crack. But it means failure. It means letdown and disappointment. But it also means progress. Bring it on...
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Rainy Daze
"Jordan's not on the bus today." Those were the words I heard another student say while I was standing at the back of the bus, just before the third stop. That was my stop, and I was, in fact, on the bus that day. Being the assertive Kindergartner that I was... I sat back down. I sat the entire rest of the bus route without saying a word. When the school bus driver had finished his route, he was surprised to see a child all by his lonesome still on the bus. By the time he dropped me off where I belonged (at least half an hour later than usual), it was pouring rain and my mom had gone to the school, concerned about my absence. The door was locked, so I sat on the steps inside my garage for fifteen to thirty minutes as my mom made her way back home, listening to the rain fall outside.
Ever since then, I've loved the sound of rain. Not just the sound of the rain--I enjoy the feel of the air when it rains, the smell of the rain (though that's likely my imagination), and the way it looks as it drops to the ground. The sound of the rain completely mesmerizes me. I've often had to shake myself back to reality and away from the dreamland to which rain's melody takes me.
That's all. Go outside, sit under an awning, and listen to the rain the next time you get the chance. It's worth it.
Ever since then, I've loved the sound of rain. Not just the sound of the rain--I enjoy the feel of the air when it rains, the smell of the rain (though that's likely my imagination), and the way it looks as it drops to the ground. The sound of the rain completely mesmerizes me. I've often had to shake myself back to reality and away from the dreamland to which rain's melody takes me.
That's all. Go outside, sit under an awning, and listen to the rain the next time you get the chance. It's worth it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Sin: Not a Mistake?
Just some thoughts of mine:
Omniscience. Omnipotence. Omnipresence. It's something most (if not all) Christians believe about God. If they were not true of God, He wouldn't be God, right? But what happens when you follow the rational course they present? I don't think many think about this.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Generally, I feel people use this according to specific situations, the "It'll be alright" verse. But can it be a little more universal? How far back can you take it, and how far forward?
God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience say this: God doesn't make mistakes. A simple statement, right? But take that far enough, believe it enough, and you get into some stuff people aren't too fond of. Christ's death - not a mistake. It's the foundation of our faith, after all. The choosing of Israel - not a mistake, for all its rough points. The promise to Abraham - definitely not a mistake. But take it way back and things get messy. How about the Fall of Man through Adam and Eve? Or how about the fall of Satan (whenever and however that was)? Kinda dicey. Because if you still believe that God doesn't make mistakes, that in all things He works for the good of those who love Him, you have some stuff you have to wrap your mind around.
You have to say that the creation of Satan was according to plan, not a mistake. My personal assertion, and the assertion of others, is that heaven will be a perfect--the most perfect "perfect"--place. And God's plan to get us there is also perfect. But if, as I just said, God's creation of Satan was not a mistake, then that means the fall he caused (both in humans and among angels) was also foreseen by God. Now, why would an omniscient God create Satan and man, knowing that both would be the cause of a lot of sin and death. My belief--and this is where things get offensive--is that a reality in which sin, pain, hunger, and death had been present is ultimately better--more perfect--than one in which they were not. In the end, something better comes out of pain/sin/death.
People don't like that. They take offense to the idea that their pain and suffering is part of some cosmic plan. It makes these things seem "good." It doesn't necessarily make them good, though. It's still not what it should have been, would have been; it's not what God intended (but at the same time, it is). It certainly doesn't make God the creator of sin, but I think He uses it as a tool, turning Satan's own game against him. It does fit into His perfect plan. If something else would ultimately have been more perfect, He would have made it so. No?
I'm no theologian. I could be way off. But I see this as a way to reconcile God's omniscience and omnipotence to the problem of sin. He certainly didn't cover his eyes and spin a top. He's got a plan. It's going to come together. And I love it when a plan comes together.
Omniscience. Omnipotence. Omnipresence. It's something most (if not all) Christians believe about God. If they were not true of God, He wouldn't be God, right? But what happens when you follow the rational course they present? I don't think many think about this.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Generally, I feel people use this according to specific situations, the "It'll be alright" verse. But can it be a little more universal? How far back can you take it, and how far forward?
God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience say this: God doesn't make mistakes. A simple statement, right? But take that far enough, believe it enough, and you get into some stuff people aren't too fond of. Christ's death - not a mistake. It's the foundation of our faith, after all. The choosing of Israel - not a mistake, for all its rough points. The promise to Abraham - definitely not a mistake. But take it way back and things get messy. How about the Fall of Man through Adam and Eve? Or how about the fall of Satan (whenever and however that was)? Kinda dicey. Because if you still believe that God doesn't make mistakes, that in all things He works for the good of those who love Him, you have some stuff you have to wrap your mind around.
You have to say that the creation of Satan was according to plan, not a mistake. My personal assertion, and the assertion of others, is that heaven will be a perfect--the most perfect "perfect"--place. And God's plan to get us there is also perfect. But if, as I just said, God's creation of Satan was not a mistake, then that means the fall he caused (both in humans and among angels) was also foreseen by God. Now, why would an omniscient God create Satan and man, knowing that both would be the cause of a lot of sin and death. My belief--and this is where things get offensive--is that a reality in which sin, pain, hunger, and death had been present is ultimately better--more perfect--than one in which they were not. In the end, something better comes out of pain/sin/death.
People don't like that. They take offense to the idea that their pain and suffering is part of some cosmic plan. It makes these things seem "good." It doesn't necessarily make them good, though. It's still not what it should have been, would have been; it's not what God intended (but at the same time, it is). It certainly doesn't make God the creator of sin, but I think He uses it as a tool, turning Satan's own game against him. It does fit into His perfect plan. If something else would ultimately have been more perfect, He would have made it so. No?
I'm no theologian. I could be way off. But I see this as a way to reconcile God's omniscience and omnipotence to the problem of sin. He certainly didn't cover his eyes and spin a top. He's got a plan. It's going to come together. And I love it when a plan comes together.
Friday, June 3, 2011
The Unwritten Heresy
Okay, so it's not that bad. But sometimes, it seems like it is. Confused? I would be. Interested? Probably not. Going to read anyway? Eh, you've got nothing better to do. (That's a lie.)
"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image.... You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.... You shall not murder. You shall find for yourself a spouse as soon as humanly possible." Wait, what? Where'd I read that, again? Once again, it's really not as big a deal as I'm making it, but it gets under my skin sometimes (which is why I make it a big deal). People seem to be in such a hurry to get married, or "unsingle-ized," to use Link's vocabulary. Particularly in the church.
It's one of the things that's emphasized often in our churches (or at least the churches I've been to)--that marriage is the ideal, and anything before that is just a temporary state, a cocoon following adolescence and preceding married life. "You can't be a butterfly unless you're married" is what I hear (non-verbally, of course). You hear all this "When you get married..." or "When you have kids..." or my personal favorite: "When you get married, Lord-willing...." I get kind of sick of it. Like it's a bad thing to be single or something.
Thus we have singles' groups, eHarmony, blahbity-blah. Not that I'm trashing marriage, of course. It's a wonderful and sacred thing, I'm sure. I just hate getting these vibes that say, "Uh-oh, these people are single. Let's fix them." Luckily, I'm only 20 right now, so I can avoid being pitied for my unfortunate circumstances. But a few years down the road, and the story will be different. Then it will be, "How can we help you get married? Because, as you know, marriage is a prerequisite to a fulfilling and complete life." Stop feeling bad for singles. Because unless they're looking and longing for a partner, you're just being annoying. And there are few things worse than being "set up." Your intentions are nice and all, but think of the message it sends. "You're obviously not happy right now, or at least not as happy as you could be. You can't find love on your own (you'd be in a relationship now if you could) and I know you well enough to choose for you, so I'm just going to partner you with this one here. Now get along, get married, and get 'having children.' No thanks needed."
That's the unwritten heresy I'm talking about. If you're not married, you're outside the will of God. Nobody would say that, of course, but it's subconscious. In the church, (Am I repeating myself? I guess rants are like that.) marriage is idealized so much that people seem to tune Paul out. "It's better to be single" goes in one ear and out the other. Someone I who spoke at Cornerstone once (Christopher Yuan) put it well. "People are always saying, 'Okay, you can live the single life, but make sure you're called to it.' I would say that you should be even more sure that you're being called to be married." Thanks, Chris. I'll be a heretic with you.
This is the part where I realize I've gone overboard and reel things back in, making apologies and whatnot. But you know what? Screw it. I deserve to be cynical once in a while. I can indulge in an unorganized rant from time to time if I want to. So I'll remain a heretic for a little while longer, until the inevitable comes to pass and I'm turned from my evil ways.
"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image.... You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.... You shall not murder. You shall find for yourself a spouse as soon as humanly possible." Wait, what? Where'd I read that, again? Once again, it's really not as big a deal as I'm making it, but it gets under my skin sometimes (which is why I make it a big deal). People seem to be in such a hurry to get married, or "unsingle-ized," to use Link's vocabulary. Particularly in the church.
It's one of the things that's emphasized often in our churches (or at least the churches I've been to)--that marriage is the ideal, and anything before that is just a temporary state, a cocoon following adolescence and preceding married life. "You can't be a butterfly unless you're married" is what I hear (non-verbally, of course). You hear all this "When you get married..." or "When you have kids..." or my personal favorite: "When you get married, Lord-willing...." I get kind of sick of it. Like it's a bad thing to be single or something.
Thus we have singles' groups, eHarmony, blahbity-blah. Not that I'm trashing marriage, of course. It's a wonderful and sacred thing, I'm sure. I just hate getting these vibes that say, "Uh-oh, these people are single. Let's fix them." Luckily, I'm only 20 right now, so I can avoid being pitied for my unfortunate circumstances. But a few years down the road, and the story will be different. Then it will be, "How can we help you get married? Because, as you know, marriage is a prerequisite to a fulfilling and complete life." Stop feeling bad for singles. Because unless they're looking and longing for a partner, you're just being annoying. And there are few things worse than being "set up." Your intentions are nice and all, but think of the message it sends. "You're obviously not happy right now, or at least not as happy as you could be. You can't find love on your own (you'd be in a relationship now if you could) and I know you well enough to choose for you, so I'm just going to partner you with this one here. Now get along, get married, and get 'having children.' No thanks needed."
That's the unwritten heresy I'm talking about. If you're not married, you're outside the will of God. Nobody would say that, of course, but it's subconscious. In the church, (Am I repeating myself? I guess rants are like that.) marriage is idealized so much that people seem to tune Paul out. "It's better to be single" goes in one ear and out the other. Someone I who spoke at Cornerstone once (Christopher Yuan) put it well. "People are always saying, 'Okay, you can live the single life, but make sure you're called to it.' I would say that you should be even more sure that you're being called to be married." Thanks, Chris. I'll be a heretic with you.
This is the part where I realize I've gone overboard and reel things back in, making apologies and whatnot. But you know what? Screw it. I deserve to be cynical once in a while. I can indulge in an unorganized rant from time to time if I want to. So I'll remain a heretic for a little while longer, until the inevitable comes to pass and I'm turned from my evil ways.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)