Well, it's Memorial Day '07. You all know what that means - time for my once-per-decade triple blog post! I'm not one for excessive fanfare and hype, so let's roll right into things.
- Love -
I think that perhaps I mis-portray my feelings on love to those geographically close to me. I've got a set of Winter Sonata calendar pages hanging up in my room and I end up watching cheesy Asian romance drama with my younger brother from time to time, and perhaps these actions imply some acceptance or agreement with the type of love most commonly portrayed in these dramas.
Well, I hereby renounce any faith or acceptance of said love-view. It's not only that I don't have faith, I am disgusted and I actively dislike the portrayal of love in these "love stories". A friend asked me last night what I thought about the idea of pursuit: "Is it a guy's responsibility to chase after a girl? Do you think he should keep try-". I rudely cut him off mid-sentence to start a rant similar to what you find below.
Asian drama is a little worse than American pop culture, but there is a serious problem with how love is portrayed in the media. It raises false expectations and I think promotes what is already a fairly high divorce rate. First I'll start with "the pursuit", most often displayed in Asian drama.
Oh god, I don't want to explain. Let me just say...men should have no responsibilities (in starting a relationship) that women do not have. It's time to move on from the archaic notions of fixed roles. It's not romantic or endearing to continue trying to "win a girl" who's not interested, it's wrong. Personally, if a woman wants to be coy or to play games to test my interest, I'm not willing to waste my time. Then again, I do spend a lot of time single.
More important is the portrayal of limerency (it's ironic and telling that this word has worked it's way into my everyday speech. Commit the idea to memory)as an example of lasting love and of true love across all forms of media. Love isn't and can't be a source of eternal uninterrupted happiness, and love doesn't make you blind to your partner's faults or problems.
I believe in love, but only in the sense that I believe we all define love for ourselves, and I choose to define it in the realm of what I believe is possible. I've got a simple indicator for what I believe to be a positive relationship, a love barometer if you will. Is your life better or worse because the other person is in it? Even more simply, are you made more or less happy because of the fact the other person is involved in your life?
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but you have to be somewhat selfish. If the relationship is making your life worse, it's not a good relationship. It's difficult to explain (and beyond the scope of this blog post)...but selfishness can be a virtue. For additional reading, I suppose you could check out this. The idea of selfishness as a virtue is not just a Randian/objectivist idea though, and I would say that I have a slightly different take on it. Regardless, it's a decent introductory text.
- Work -
I'll likely be starting a very busy schedule at the end of June. All my current work and the standard 40 hour/week job as well (I'll be doing 6 months of on site contract work). I wonder where I'll find time for other important things in life, with such a busy schedule. I suppose I'm just thinking about how I'll probably be very tired, and it's hard to focus or to want to read or write in those scenarios. I think what brought the worry to the forefront of my mind was a statistic I overheard that the average American watches 4 hours of TV/day. First...holy crap. Second...I suppose I can understand. Why not relax after spending a day at work?
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to start with TV...but we'll see how I do with a different life arrangement. Wish me luck.
- Religion -
Return to spirituality. Forget about religion...because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. so the first task of organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without questions.
If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.
...
So many of your men are just like your nations. Power hungry. They do not like to share power, merely exercise it. And they have constructed the same kind of God. A power hungry God. A god who does not like to share power but merely exercise it. "Yet I tell you this: God's greatest gift is the sharing of God's power.
God would have you be like himself.
From Conversations with God, Book 2
-
I don't know that I believe in a God - certainly not in an interventionist God who interacts with the world with some kind of supreme power and unknown agenda. What I like about this passage is the power given to the self. What I like is the concept that it's time we grow up, stop doubting ourselves, and trust that we can find important answers within. I like the recognition that we are powerful beings with the capacity to control our own lives. I like the recognition that we are not children who must look to their father for answers, but adults who can find answers within.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
On Portland
A southern Florida newspaper ran an article on the beautiful city of Portland recently. Want to read about how great Portland is?
Then click here!
Then click here!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Life Lessons: Accepting Diversity
Is it useful to make public lessons I think may only be understood through experience? I'm not sure how I feel about it.
At the ripe old age of 26, I'm still maturing. In fact, I haven't really noticed a truly significant slowdown in the "growing up" process in maybe 10 years. Am I especially immature? I like to think not.
I'm not sure when I realized it, but I'm naturally very dismissive of other views. I now believe that this is really just a form of immaturity. Part of maturing, part of "growing up" (as the idiom goes), is shedding irrelevant paradigms we develop when we're younger. The paradigm to shed is "when I've found the right way to do/think about/view something, it's the right way." Life isn't some hard science, it's dynamic and diverse: there are multiple methods to reach any solution.
I'd think that traveling abroad might open your eyes to this. Perhaps in America we're especially prone to this particular immaturity due to our somewhat unique situation. We have a fair degree of diversity in our culture (usually), perhaps we fall into a trap where the norms of our culture are accepted as absolutes: we're alright with diversity, as long as it falls within a certain range of behaviors.
So what does this all mean? Potentially nothing to you, reader. To me, it means an attempt to catch myself when I find myself looking down on another's viewpoint or ideas, dismissing it without thought because it falls outside the range of what I feel is "normal". If I catch myself, I'll take a deep breath, and consider the idea, consider how the person arrived at their conclusion, and think about its relevance and how best to react.
Of course, if the idea is still ridiculous, I reserve the right to laugh at it.
At the ripe old age of 26, I'm still maturing. In fact, I haven't really noticed a truly significant slowdown in the "growing up" process in maybe 10 years. Am I especially immature? I like to think not.
I'm not sure when I realized it, but I'm naturally very dismissive of other views. I now believe that this is really just a form of immaturity. Part of maturing, part of "growing up" (as the idiom goes), is shedding irrelevant paradigms we develop when we're younger. The paradigm to shed is "when I've found the right way to do/think about/view something, it's the right way." Life isn't some hard science, it's dynamic and diverse: there are multiple methods to reach any solution.
I'd think that traveling abroad might open your eyes to this. Perhaps in America we're especially prone to this particular immaturity due to our somewhat unique situation. We have a fair degree of diversity in our culture (usually), perhaps we fall into a trap where the norms of our culture are accepted as absolutes: we're alright with diversity, as long as it falls within a certain range of behaviors.
So what does this all mean? Potentially nothing to you, reader. To me, it means an attempt to catch myself when I find myself looking down on another's viewpoint or ideas, dismissing it without thought because it falls outside the range of what I feel is "normal". If I catch myself, I'll take a deep breath, and consider the idea, consider how the person arrived at their conclusion, and think about its relevance and how best to react.
Of course, if the idea is still ridiculous, I reserve the right to laugh at it.
Van Gogh, Starry Starry Night
A Slide Show Double Tribute to Vincent van Gogh and Don McLean. Interesting, if you're a fan of Van Gogh's art or even just curious.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Knowledge vs. Wisdom
This post is partially inspired by a chapter from a book I'm reading (Conversations with God, Book 2) and I'll be borrowing heavily from some of the ideas presented in that book.
-
Is there a fundamental problem with our school systems?
I think a question like this could spark a lot of debate. Debate can lead to productive results, but more often than not I think debate doesn't really "lead" to anything - it just is. This is because more often than not with a question like this neither side can ever really conclusively prove a point - there are strong, reasonable arguments for both sides.
That's why it's important to ask the right questions. What if, instead of the above question, the question was:
Is there a way to improve our school systems with a fundamental change?
This simple change in wording diverts the focus of the issue. No longer can the arguments focus be whether or not the system is flawed. Things don't have to be flawed for improvements to be made on them: there is no fundamental flaw in the horse-drawn carriage, but that didn't stop advent of the automobile. Changing the wording of the question can change how the answer is reached from a meaningless debate into a productive quest. It's much easier and more practical to look at proposed changes to the educational system and argue over their effectiveness.
So, I come to this post with a question about such an improvement. Would it be beneficial to restructure our educational system so that instead of being knowledge-based, it was wisdom based?
Let me clarify the terms. Knowledge is facts. Knowledge is formulas. Knowledge is, basically, what we teach now. Knowledge conveys information and data that humanity has learned or discovered. The emphasis in knowledge-based educational systems leans toward the memorization of facts. What year did Columbus discover America? What's the Pythagorean theorem? Can you memorize your multiplication tables? Knowledge-based systems cram students' minds with information.
Wisdom is ideas. Wisdom, as opposed to facts, is critical thinking about those facts. Wisdom is about knowing how to think, as opposed to knowing things. Courses like Critical Thinking focus on enhancing a student's wisdom. In a wisdom-based educational system emphasis would not be on a memorization of facts, it would be on problem-solving and coming to your own conclusions.
I think it's important to note that knowledge is required for wisdom. You can't come to your own conclusions about things without an understanding of them and how they work. Wisdom is not really a requirement for knowledge though - you can pack schools full of knowledge-based courses (what to think) and drop any "wisdom" courses (how to think) without immediately obvious detrimental effects.
Then again, just because the effects aren't obvious or immediate doesn't mean they are not there. The current system heavily favors students with a high capacity for memorization, but there is little done to integrate all of the knowledge. I talked to a friend recently (who has denounced all rights to credit for the idea) who talked about how silly it was that our educational system taught courses that were so disparate in their relation to one another. Instead of learning a system of related facts, we learn the facts "in a bubble" without any real relation to other things we learn. We learn about "ancient" Greek society and we learn the Pythagorean formula for triangles, but there is no reference made to their relation...no reference made to the fact that Pythagorus was a philosopher around the same time as Socrates, often not even a reference made to the further (practical) implications of knowing that the sum of the squares in a right triangle is equal to the square of it's diagonal/hypotenuse.
Integration of facts does not necessarily lead to a wisdom-based educational system, but it comes closer to allowing the students a further understanding of not just the "what", but also the "how". The "how" allows students more insight and lets them come to some of their own conclusions.
Conversations with God references this as a major factor in why schools stay the way they are. Parents are afraid to give their children the tools to think for themselves, because then they'll come to their own conclusions, or they'll judge their parents actions by their own standards. The children might disagree and therefore lose respect for the decisions made by the generation before them. The example given is the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan - as teenagers we're not told every side of the story and allowed to come to our own conclusion about whether this is right or wrong. We don't want our children to question our motives, but instead to understand the facts as we see them.
There are also those who question whether youths can successfully think for themselves. It seems they're more interested in rebelling and often morally lacking. They're "destroying our way of life". Let me quote a particularly interesting portion of the book in response to that viewpoint:
"The young people are destroying your way of life. The young people have always done that. Your job is to encourage it, not discourage it.
It is not your young people who are destroying the rain forests. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are depleting your ozone layer. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are exploiting the poor in sweat shops all over the world. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are taxing you to death, then using the money for war and machines of war. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are ignoring the problems of the weak and downtrodden, letting hundreds of people die of starvation every day on a planet with more than enough to feed everybody. They are asking you to stop it.
It is not your young people who are engaging in the politics of deception and manipulation. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people how are sexually repressed, ashamed, and embarrassed about their own bodies and passing on this shame and embarrassment to their offspring. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who have set up a value system which says that 'might is right' and a world which solves problems with violence. They are asking you to stop it.
Nay, they are not asking you...they are begging you."
Back on topic, I think a generation of those who are expert thinkers rather than a generation of minds packed full of facts would be a beneficial move for society. We forget facts, but as we develop new, more effective, thinking systems they become integrated into our everyday life: unforgettable.
-
Is there a fundamental problem with our school systems?
I think a question like this could spark a lot of debate. Debate can lead to productive results, but more often than not I think debate doesn't really "lead" to anything - it just is. This is because more often than not with a question like this neither side can ever really conclusively prove a point - there are strong, reasonable arguments for both sides.
That's why it's important to ask the right questions. What if, instead of the above question, the question was:
Is there a way to improve our school systems with a fundamental change?
This simple change in wording diverts the focus of the issue. No longer can the arguments focus be whether or not the system is flawed. Things don't have to be flawed for improvements to be made on them: there is no fundamental flaw in the horse-drawn carriage, but that didn't stop advent of the automobile. Changing the wording of the question can change how the answer is reached from a meaningless debate into a productive quest. It's much easier and more practical to look at proposed changes to the educational system and argue over their effectiveness.
So, I come to this post with a question about such an improvement. Would it be beneficial to restructure our educational system so that instead of being knowledge-based, it was wisdom based?
Let me clarify the terms. Knowledge is facts. Knowledge is formulas. Knowledge is, basically, what we teach now. Knowledge conveys information and data that humanity has learned or discovered. The emphasis in knowledge-based educational systems leans toward the memorization of facts. What year did Columbus discover America? What's the Pythagorean theorem? Can you memorize your multiplication tables? Knowledge-based systems cram students' minds with information.
Wisdom is ideas. Wisdom, as opposed to facts, is critical thinking about those facts. Wisdom is about knowing how to think, as opposed to knowing things. Courses like Critical Thinking focus on enhancing a student's wisdom. In a wisdom-based educational system emphasis would not be on a memorization of facts, it would be on problem-solving and coming to your own conclusions.
I think it's important to note that knowledge is required for wisdom. You can't come to your own conclusions about things without an understanding of them and how they work. Wisdom is not really a requirement for knowledge though - you can pack schools full of knowledge-based courses (what to think) and drop any "wisdom" courses (how to think) without immediately obvious detrimental effects.
Then again, just because the effects aren't obvious or immediate doesn't mean they are not there. The current system heavily favors students with a high capacity for memorization, but there is little done to integrate all of the knowledge. I talked to a friend recently (who has denounced all rights to credit for the idea) who talked about how silly it was that our educational system taught courses that were so disparate in their relation to one another. Instead of learning a system of related facts, we learn the facts "in a bubble" without any real relation to other things we learn. We learn about "ancient" Greek society and we learn the Pythagorean formula for triangles, but there is no reference made to their relation...no reference made to the fact that Pythagorus was a philosopher around the same time as Socrates, often not even a reference made to the further (practical) implications of knowing that the sum of the squares in a right triangle is equal to the square of it's diagonal/hypotenuse.
Integration of facts does not necessarily lead to a wisdom-based educational system, but it comes closer to allowing the students a further understanding of not just the "what", but also the "how". The "how" allows students more insight and lets them come to some of their own conclusions.
Conversations with God references this as a major factor in why schools stay the way they are. Parents are afraid to give their children the tools to think for themselves, because then they'll come to their own conclusions, or they'll judge their parents actions by their own standards. The children might disagree and therefore lose respect for the decisions made by the generation before them. The example given is the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan - as teenagers we're not told every side of the story and allowed to come to our own conclusion about whether this is right or wrong. We don't want our children to question our motives, but instead to understand the facts as we see them.
There are also those who question whether youths can successfully think for themselves. It seems they're more interested in rebelling and often morally lacking. They're "destroying our way of life". Let me quote a particularly interesting portion of the book in response to that viewpoint:
"The young people are destroying your way of life. The young people have always done that. Your job is to encourage it, not discourage it.
It is not your young people who are destroying the rain forests. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are depleting your ozone layer. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are exploiting the poor in sweat shops all over the world. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are taxing you to death, then using the money for war and machines of war. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who are ignoring the problems of the weak and downtrodden, letting hundreds of people die of starvation every day on a planet with more than enough to feed everybody. They are asking you to stop it.
It is not your young people who are engaging in the politics of deception and manipulation. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people how are sexually repressed, ashamed, and embarrassed about their own bodies and passing on this shame and embarrassment to their offspring. They are asking you to stop it. It is not your young people who have set up a value system which says that 'might is right' and a world which solves problems with violence. They are asking you to stop it.
Nay, they are not asking you...they are begging you."
Back on topic, I think a generation of those who are expert thinkers rather than a generation of minds packed full of facts would be a beneficial move for society. We forget facts, but as we develop new, more effective, thinking systems they become integrated into our everyday life: unforgettable.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Music Download
I recorded my music at a professional recording studio recently with Matt. Despite my mistakes, it didn't turn out too badly. You can give it a download by clicking on the songs individually, or listen to all 3 tracks in your browser by clicking here.
About:
These are the first three pieces I've written, and they've been through a lot in the years that I've been working on them (off and on). I wrote them in order with the intent they were listened to/played that way, though the emphasis I place on smooth transition isn't noticeable in these recordings. I hope you like them!
- Trilogy Eternal
About:
These are the first three pieces I've written, and they've been through a lot in the years that I've been working on them (off and on). I wrote them in order with the intent they were listened to/played that way, though the emphasis I place on smooth transition isn't noticeable in these recordings. I hope you like them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
