I'm not sure which makes me happier. . .
that I have further proof of my conspiracy theory regarding google
or that I'm using google property to disseminate said proof.
With that said, up yours google!
Please read the following story. What google gets away with is unbelievable. . . and it's all made possible by the american public. . . financed by greedy @#%#!&$%~~@*!(.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558177&in_page_id=1770
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Unspeakable Words, Part I
The following piece is something I cooked up the other day. It is incomplete, as I hope to delve into the list of words that I shall compile and reasons why they should not be used if one is to hope for effective communication regarding religion and a life including God.
As I develop my personal approach to religion and the study thereof, the inconsistency and inadequacy of words has become an increasingly obnoxious obstacle to expression and more importantly communication.
My respect and passion both for classic thought and culture and for the science of words leaves me with a very classical interpretation of words based primarily on their root forms and historical purposes (as I may know those to be). Thus, the word ‘exclusive’ to me indicates primarily a predisposition to exclusion.
That is to say that an exclusive entity is one that does not accept or recognize people, members, customers, etc. based on a certain set of criteria (i.e. certain churches neglecting people with tattoos or piercings).
However, the more common associations to this word might include special or glamorous qualities. These are positive connotations possibly stemming from such contemporary uses as modern marketing suggestions which, ironically, aim to convince regular people of their potential to be included in extravagant or elite lifestyles (such as an exclusive resort or restaurant which, although typically catering to a certain demographic based on clear criteria is not in actuality closed to people not meeting those criteria. A middle class individual can get into an "exclusive" resort or restaurant provided she is willing and able to pay the fee).
I have struggled extensively with such issues of semantic miscommunication of ideas. In my experiences, one might be in the midst of a fantastic conversation on the mysteries and even glories of God but by simply speaking the words “salvation”, “personal savior”, “church”, or “sin”, the connection and influence one may have built with a fellow seeker will instantaneously be lost. Such words, in a post-evangelical movement America are automatic circuit breakers in the electrical current that is God-seeking conversation.
And so, just as language itself evolves to better enable successive generations to communicate effectively, so too must our religious vocabulary evolve.
This process, similar to that natural process observed by Charles Darwin, is twofold.
First, most words (that is, all words not covered by the second part below) must adapt. Just as all species adapt to their ever-changing environment, so too must we redefine the meaning and uses of words as our society’s experience with these words alters the interpretations of ideas defined through them.
Second, words that are no longer useful or able to exist as they presently exist in their current environment must face extinction if unable to suitably adapt. I have, as a result, resolved to cease the use of such circuit-breaking words as are described above.
To be continued. . .
Love,
The newly-devolved Revolution
As I develop my personal approach to religion and the study thereof, the inconsistency and inadequacy of words has become an increasingly obnoxious obstacle to expression and more importantly communication.
My respect and passion both for classic thought and culture and for the science of words leaves me with a very classical interpretation of words based primarily on their root forms and historical purposes (as I may know those to be). Thus, the word ‘exclusive’ to me indicates primarily a predisposition to exclusion.
That is to say that an exclusive entity is one that does not accept or recognize people, members, customers, etc. based on a certain set of criteria (i.e. certain churches neglecting people with tattoos or piercings).
However, the more common associations to this word might include special or glamorous qualities. These are positive connotations possibly stemming from such contemporary uses as modern marketing suggestions which, ironically, aim to convince regular people of their potential to be included in extravagant or elite lifestyles (such as an exclusive resort or restaurant which, although typically catering to a certain demographic based on clear criteria is not in actuality closed to people not meeting those criteria. A middle class individual can get into an "exclusive" resort or restaurant provided she is willing and able to pay the fee).
I have struggled extensively with such issues of semantic miscommunication of ideas. In my experiences, one might be in the midst of a fantastic conversation on the mysteries and even glories of God but by simply speaking the words “salvation”, “personal savior”, “church”, or “sin”, the connection and influence one may have built with a fellow seeker will instantaneously be lost. Such words, in a post-evangelical movement America are automatic circuit breakers in the electrical current that is God-seeking conversation.
And so, just as language itself evolves to better enable successive generations to communicate effectively, so too must our religious vocabulary evolve.
This process, similar to that natural process observed by Charles Darwin, is twofold.
First, most words (that is, all words not covered by the second part below) must adapt. Just as all species adapt to their ever-changing environment, so too must we redefine the meaning and uses of words as our society’s experience with these words alters the interpretations of ideas defined through them.
Second, words that are no longer useful or able to exist as they presently exist in their current environment must face extinction if unable to suitably adapt. I have, as a result, resolved to cease the use of such circuit-breaking words as are described above.
To be continued. . .
Love,
The newly-devolved Revolution
The Myspace Files. . .
I've just finished transfering my pertinent blogs from myspace (http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine) to this site. Therefore, all blogs preceding this one were originally posted on myspace. I felt that they would add perspective and contribute to the picture of my growth by being included in the archives of this site.
I apologize for any troubles in reading these copied and pasted articles as some formatting doesn't transfer.
Thanks,
The Revolution
I apologize for any troubles in reading these copied and pasted articles as some formatting doesn't transfer.
Thanks,
The Revolution
Avid Blogging - A Not So New Year's Revolution. . . I Mean Resolution
Originally posted 03/06/08 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
I hate that it is this way, but my life so frequently ebbs and flows with the coming and going of seasons. For this reason, I hate winter. In the months of January and February, it seems like everyone around me (and myself) gets so cranky. This makes for bad Aarons. Good news, though. . . we're now in the month of March.And with that has come a much freer, happier attitude and general disposition. I'm excited about God and about my life and about the various relationships that I enjoy and will cultivate.Why is it so? Why do we have to live in a constant state of give and take, ebb and flow, ups and downs, mountains and valleys? Why is it always a tug of war between good and evil, productive and lazy?!?!?Religions have fought this by establishing routines. By creating the habit of praying five times a day, Muslims (theoretically) ensure that they will never stray too far. By participating in the daily office (again, theoretically), monks hope to maintain a steady, Godly disposition.Maybe I haven't found the right thing, but this doesn't seem to work for me. Even when I have successfully implemented habit, ritual, routine into my life, I find that my intentions, interpretations and the way in which I engage the routine shift over time. What was a spiritually engaging habbit becomes a duty or requirement. No longer do I seek the presence of God. . . I now do it because to not do it would be blatant ignorance of God. It's an avoidance of negative rather than a pursuit of positive. The benefit goes away. Jews might tell me to continue doing it anyway, that it's not about my benefit. They're probably right, but isn't religion about coping with/overcoming our imperfections rather than expounding them? It would seem that a ritual that ceases to be effective, spiritually, is not being effective within my religion.Here's to learning and experiencing and finding out more about stuff that we would all know if only our education system were more adequate,The Revolution
I hate that it is this way, but my life so frequently ebbs and flows with the coming and going of seasons. For this reason, I hate winter. In the months of January and February, it seems like everyone around me (and myself) gets so cranky. This makes for bad Aarons. Good news, though. . . we're now in the month of March.And with that has come a much freer, happier attitude and general disposition. I'm excited about God and about my life and about the various relationships that I enjoy and will cultivate.Why is it so? Why do we have to live in a constant state of give and take, ebb and flow, ups and downs, mountains and valleys? Why is it always a tug of war between good and evil, productive and lazy?!?!?Religions have fought this by establishing routines. By creating the habit of praying five times a day, Muslims (theoretically) ensure that they will never stray too far. By participating in the daily office (again, theoretically), monks hope to maintain a steady, Godly disposition.Maybe I haven't found the right thing, but this doesn't seem to work for me. Even when I have successfully implemented habit, ritual, routine into my life, I find that my intentions, interpretations and the way in which I engage the routine shift over time. What was a spiritually engaging habbit becomes a duty or requirement. No longer do I seek the presence of God. . . I now do it because to not do it would be blatant ignorance of God. It's an avoidance of negative rather than a pursuit of positive. The benefit goes away. Jews might tell me to continue doing it anyway, that it's not about my benefit. They're probably right, but isn't religion about coping with/overcoming our imperfections rather than expounding them? It would seem that a ritual that ceases to be effective, spiritually, is not being effective within my religion.Here's to learning and experiencing and finding out more about stuff that we would all know if only our education system were more adequate,The Revolution
The Evolution of Religion. . .
Originally posted 01/23/08 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
The Bishops and high priests of the neo-darwinist-atheism circles are proclaiming that religion is a survival tool of cavemen and that as the human race continues to evolve, religion will no longer be necessary for survival. Therefore, it will soon be eliminated. This of course implies that they are bloody brilliant, indeed maybe even super-human, having already evolved past the homeo sapien species and into homeo dickheadian.But, I can't say they are altogether wrong in their critique of our most prevalent, organised religions. It seems to me (and many others) that the authors present in the bible and the quran dealt with a specific few issues. There is the weakness of man, nature of God, relationship of God to man, death, community, family, eternity and time and all of creation's subjection to it, and the dual nature of the world...good v. evil.Let me begin to address the latter by saying that I find it awfully convenient that "the evil one" appears almost out of nowhere in the New Testament of the bible. Where he (or his presumed likeness) does appear in the Old Testament, it is either under another name, form, or altogether sketchy circumstances (i.e. - in Job where God and the devil are almost good buddies - maybe even one, schizo entity...certainly not the devil of the N.T. at any rate)To me, from a historical standpoint, this points to a need among early Christians to adress the effects that an immediate and intimidating opponent (social, political, personal, professional, spiritual etc.) can have on every day life. Namely, the Romans. I'm out of my expertise (do i have an expertise?), but it seems to me that the development of the evil one as a separate and distinct entity, wholly opposed to God is a reflection of the common man's fear of the Republic. The Romans in the middle east would have been a great threat and source of great fear. If you think the neo-lib hippies are bad, imagine them with all the political, military, social, economic and spiritual influence that the Roman's imposed upon occupied territories.This theology continued into the middle ages where territorial rivalries grew ever stronger as power fluxed back and forth. The purpose of a doctrine of good v. evil was still necessary. It was therefore built upon by years and years of Catholic dogma drawn from the aforementioned sketchy references of the Old Testament (the morning star falling....how, in God's name, did this become the basis of an elaborate story such as that of the fall of Satan?????!!!!)Today, however, I question the necessity of a concept of a "kingdom of evil."With the dawn of a "global society", there are no immediate threats on our personal, spiritual lives. While there may still be risk and threats of violence out of many entities such as Iran, Afghanistan, Palistine or Al Quaida, they are not true threats in the sense that the Roman's were able to dictate and severely alter the ability of a common man to live freely.Without making this too awfully long, let me finish by saying that I think that this notion of good v. evil which is upheld by all major religions can serve no purpose today but to support the hatred and violence, name-calling (axis of evil anyone?) and brutal slayings of war that we see going on in the name of "good" over "evil"So, in the adaption of a religion to modern society, one ought to consider the origins of the ideas of good and evil. How satan came about. What he represents. . . in the context of the bible, in the dogma of the various churches and as a symbol of evil. What is embodied in the term evil as used in both the bible and modern religion. Is there a better way of taking care of the problem of being nice to people?It's time to stop thinking in the black and white terms of good v. evil. Final word: my pastor, last Sunday, used a verse (from Galations, I think) about a small amount of yeast affecting the entire loaf of bread. In his sermon, this was used to urge us not to have secular friends. That's silly. But the verse has great meaning here. All of us have a little evil within us. . . we're human. We all have that amount of yeast that will affect the entire loaf. We're all evil (10's on a scale of 10 if this yeast story is to be applied)...we're all good (inasmuch as we're able to be). Stop categorizing each other. Like I said, it's this division (created and upheld by philosophies/theologies and doctrines) that enables the hatred and physical violence that we've all experienced and probably have taken part in.Love,The Revolution
The Bishops and high priests of the neo-darwinist-atheism circles are proclaiming that religion is a survival tool of cavemen and that as the human race continues to evolve, religion will no longer be necessary for survival. Therefore, it will soon be eliminated. This of course implies that they are bloody brilliant, indeed maybe even super-human, having already evolved past the homeo sapien species and into homeo dickheadian.But, I can't say they are altogether wrong in their critique of our most prevalent, organised religions. It seems to me (and many others) that the authors present in the bible and the quran dealt with a specific few issues. There is the weakness of man, nature of God, relationship of God to man, death, community, family, eternity and time and all of creation's subjection to it, and the dual nature of the world...good v. evil.Let me begin to address the latter by saying that I find it awfully convenient that "the evil one" appears almost out of nowhere in the New Testament of the bible. Where he (or his presumed likeness) does appear in the Old Testament, it is either under another name, form, or altogether sketchy circumstances (i.e. - in Job where God and the devil are almost good buddies - maybe even one, schizo entity...certainly not the devil of the N.T. at any rate)To me, from a historical standpoint, this points to a need among early Christians to adress the effects that an immediate and intimidating opponent (social, political, personal, professional, spiritual etc.) can have on every day life. Namely, the Romans. I'm out of my expertise (do i have an expertise?), but it seems to me that the development of the evil one as a separate and distinct entity, wholly opposed to God is a reflection of the common man's fear of the Republic. The Romans in the middle east would have been a great threat and source of great fear. If you think the neo-lib hippies are bad, imagine them with all the political, military, social, economic and spiritual influence that the Roman's imposed upon occupied territories.This theology continued into the middle ages where territorial rivalries grew ever stronger as power fluxed back and forth. The purpose of a doctrine of good v. evil was still necessary. It was therefore built upon by years and years of Catholic dogma drawn from the aforementioned sketchy references of the Old Testament (the morning star falling....how, in God's name, did this become the basis of an elaborate story such as that of the fall of Satan?????!!!!)Today, however, I question the necessity of a concept of a "kingdom of evil."With the dawn of a "global society", there are no immediate threats on our personal, spiritual lives. While there may still be risk and threats of violence out of many entities such as Iran, Afghanistan, Palistine or Al Quaida, they are not true threats in the sense that the Roman's were able to dictate and severely alter the ability of a common man to live freely.Without making this too awfully long, let me finish by saying that I think that this notion of good v. evil which is upheld by all major religions can serve no purpose today but to support the hatred and violence, name-calling (axis of evil anyone?) and brutal slayings of war that we see going on in the name of "good" over "evil"So, in the adaption of a religion to modern society, one ought to consider the origins of the ideas of good and evil. How satan came about. What he represents. . . in the context of the bible, in the dogma of the various churches and as a symbol of evil. What is embodied in the term evil as used in both the bible and modern religion. Is there a better way of taking care of the problem of being nice to people?It's time to stop thinking in the black and white terms of good v. evil. Final word: my pastor, last Sunday, used a verse (from Galations, I think) about a small amount of yeast affecting the entire loaf of bread. In his sermon, this was used to urge us not to have secular friends. That's silly. But the verse has great meaning here. All of us have a little evil within us. . . we're human. We all have that amount of yeast that will affect the entire loaf. We're all evil (10's on a scale of 10 if this yeast story is to be applied)...we're all good (inasmuch as we're able to be). Stop categorizing each other. Like I said, it's this division (created and upheld by philosophies/theologies and doctrines) that enables the hatred and physical violence that we've all experienced and probably have taken part in.Love,The Revolution
time for the monthly blog. . . yes
Originally posted 12/29/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
Well, we finally got Christmas out of the way...now we can go back to mundane, sometimes-enjoyable life rather than the mess that it has been. Does it bother me that I only enjoyed Christmas because of the new toys I have??? Yes. Is there anything I can do about that??? I don't think so. I did get to see family and that was nice, but really...I'd have rather seen them some other time when the rest of life wasn't so busy.We've got this here worship thing going on in a couple of days. I'm not really sure how to approach it. Oh well. Life sometimes passes us by while we're thinking about it too much.It's depressing to admit that all I do is watch it as it does so.Well, here's to arkansas, a new year and exploding trees.The Revolution
Well, we finally got Christmas out of the way...now we can go back to mundane, sometimes-enjoyable life rather than the mess that it has been. Does it bother me that I only enjoyed Christmas because of the new toys I have??? Yes. Is there anything I can do about that??? I don't think so. I did get to see family and that was nice, but really...I'd have rather seen them some other time when the rest of life wasn't so busy.We've got this here worship thing going on in a couple of days. I'm not really sure how to approach it. Oh well. Life sometimes passes us by while we're thinking about it too much.It's depressing to admit that all I do is watch it as it does so.Well, here's to arkansas, a new year and exploding trees.The Revolution
A Withdrawal of Previously Blogged Upon Thoughts
Originally Posted 11/04/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
I said earlier that I was miffed that freedom wasn't freeI have to redefine freedom...I didn't think about it enough earlier and I lied a little bit.Thomas Jefferson made the same mistake.He said freedom was an inalienable right of man, given by God to all men. Here's the thing: Freedom is limited by nature every bit as much as it can limited by man/government/THE MAN/etc.I guess it is alienable...nothing we can do if God himself (nature) can and does limit it.Even freedom of the will (the highest kind of freedom according to Augustine) is limited by natureI may will to go to China, but unless I have either a really sweet canoe or a couple thousand dollars, no can do! There's an ocean between me and china. So, I have to pay someone to get there. I have to work to make money to pay someone to get there. Alas, I'm not entirely free to go to china on a whim....In my previous rant, I cried about the fact that I have to pay tax for the freedom to own a home. Here's the thing. I don't think there is such a thing as freedom to own a home (real estate property). We are not free (assuming freedom is some kind of sick, half-gift of God as Thomas Jefferson and I seem to agree) to possess land. That's stupid. We don't have that right. Whoever decided we could possess land needs to be burned. Not that I want to be a big hippy, but it's just absolutely wrong to say that I should have the freedom to possess a piece of nature. But I live a slave to the society that owns me. And so I'll keep my house, thankyou very much....and I'll pay that tax happily....but not the auto use tax...or the passport tax...I'll keep right on complaining about them.
I said earlier that I was miffed that freedom wasn't freeI have to redefine freedom...I didn't think about it enough earlier and I lied a little bit.Thomas Jefferson made the same mistake.He said freedom was an inalienable right of man, given by God to all men. Here's the thing: Freedom is limited by nature every bit as much as it can limited by man/government/THE MAN/etc.I guess it is alienable...nothing we can do if God himself (nature) can and does limit it.Even freedom of the will (the highest kind of freedom according to Augustine) is limited by natureI may will to go to China, but unless I have either a really sweet canoe or a couple thousand dollars, no can do! There's an ocean between me and china. So, I have to pay someone to get there. I have to work to make money to pay someone to get there. Alas, I'm not entirely free to go to china on a whim....In my previous rant, I cried about the fact that I have to pay tax for the freedom to own a home. Here's the thing. I don't think there is such a thing as freedom to own a home (real estate property). We are not free (assuming freedom is some kind of sick, half-gift of God as Thomas Jefferson and I seem to agree) to possess land. That's stupid. We don't have that right. Whoever decided we could possess land needs to be burned. Not that I want to be a big hippy, but it's just absolutely wrong to say that I should have the freedom to possess a piece of nature. But I live a slave to the society that owns me. And so I'll keep my house, thankyou very much....and I'll pay that tax happily....but not the auto use tax...or the passport tax...I'll keep right on complaining about them.
The Price of Freedom?
Originally Posted 10/06/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
So, time for a real blog.Time to rebuild this revolution!!What is the price of freedom?Our ancestors' and friends' and current soldiers' and former soldiers' lives and the sanity of most of the vietnam vets (you know, the ones who haven't shaved since they came home, and the ones like the dude who smells funny and comes into barnes and noble wearing a hat that says someting to the effect of "Vietnam Vets Against Bush!") Is that really the price of freedom???NO!This is the price of freedom:$78 for a lisence plate to have the FREEDOM to drive a car$15 for a use tax to have the FREEDOM to drive a car (it would have been 60 if i hadn't lied a little bit50$ish for a title transfer to have the FREEDOM to own a car$30 a tank for the FREEDOM to drive a car (including around $.20/gal for the FREEDOM to drive on roads...not that I dont agree with this one)$80 for the FREEDOM to leave the countryA couple thousand dollars in income taxes every year for the FREEDOM to live in this country and draw income legallyAround $600 for the FREEDOM to own real estate property (and that's low)And the list goes onIt's oppression, I tell ya! That I am unable to leave the country until I pay nigh $100.00. That's truly not freedom. What if I was poor and decided that I no longer agreed with the politics/ethics/operation/etc. of this country. I would have no choice but to toil here, in a society that I cannot, in good concience, participate in. What if I were homeless and Hillary were to be elected. I'd have to live under her regime because I couldn't scrounge up such an exorbitant fee. So, FREEDOM, has become a priviledge granted only to those who are priviledged enough to be able to afford it. Now I realize that in some cases, one could argue that you are paying these taxes for the priviledge and that, in fact, you're free not to pay those taxes. But what choice is that??? This is ridiculous. I'm moving to Switzerland....and yes, I just might use the word priviledge some more.
So, time for a real blog.Time to rebuild this revolution!!What is the price of freedom?Our ancestors' and friends' and current soldiers' and former soldiers' lives and the sanity of most of the vietnam vets (you know, the ones who haven't shaved since they came home, and the ones like the dude who smells funny and comes into barnes and noble wearing a hat that says someting to the effect of "Vietnam Vets Against Bush!") Is that really the price of freedom???NO!This is the price of freedom:$78 for a lisence plate to have the FREEDOM to drive a car$15 for a use tax to have the FREEDOM to drive a car (it would have been 60 if i hadn't lied a little bit50$ish for a title transfer to have the FREEDOM to own a car$30 a tank for the FREEDOM to drive a car (including around $.20/gal for the FREEDOM to drive on roads...not that I dont agree with this one)$80 for the FREEDOM to leave the countryA couple thousand dollars in income taxes every year for the FREEDOM to live in this country and draw income legallyAround $600 for the FREEDOM to own real estate property (and that's low)And the list goes onIt's oppression, I tell ya! That I am unable to leave the country until I pay nigh $100.00. That's truly not freedom. What if I was poor and decided that I no longer agreed with the politics/ethics/operation/etc. of this country. I would have no choice but to toil here, in a society that I cannot, in good concience, participate in. What if I were homeless and Hillary were to be elected. I'd have to live under her regime because I couldn't scrounge up such an exorbitant fee. So, FREEDOM, has become a priviledge granted only to those who are priviledged enough to be able to afford it. Now I realize that in some cases, one could argue that you are paying these taxes for the priviledge and that, in fact, you're free not to pay those taxes. But what choice is that??? This is ridiculous. I'm moving to Switzerland....and yes, I just might use the word priviledge some more.
This, That, and The Other
Originally Posted 10/03/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
time for a bit of bumbling lunacy...I've discovered various things lately.Among them...: - God does live in a trout stream (don't look for him in church or at weddings...he's at home in his trout stream) - Contrary to my father's opinion, "winning souls for the Lord" is hypocritical (by combining the words "winning" and "Lord" in a phrase...love isn't a competition) and worse, just plain stupid - I'm kind of sick and demented inside...it feels like tar creeping through my soul...I hope all of you are worse than me, so Jesus will let me in first. - Using the word "love" is a good thing. It keeps it real. - Running a revolution is not so easy as you might think - I like people, generally...but they're usually at their best in a one-on-one setting, where the expectations of the world aren't quite so pressing - Speaking of expectations, I've learned that there exists, in my mind, a super-Aaron....he's dead. - I expect nothing in particular from you. I don't need you to be super-you. I don't need you to hide the ugly parts (unless you're a rapist or CIA) I don't need you to be a friend, but I might appreciate it. I really don't even need you for my revolution. But, I'd appreciate you. I do expect you to be responsible and respectful, but if you're not, that's okay too. I don't expect you to do anything or be anybody that has to do with what your parents are/are not or expect you to be/not to be...that's kind of getting old (and I criticize myself here as well) - Trout streams are kind of neat - I didn't really understand what a friend was. I'm starting to get it figured out. - Always look on the bright side of life.Love,Aaron
time for a bit of bumbling lunacy...I've discovered various things lately.Among them...: - God does live in a trout stream (don't look for him in church or at weddings...he's at home in his trout stream) - Contrary to my father's opinion, "winning souls for the Lord" is hypocritical (by combining the words "winning" and "Lord" in a phrase...love isn't a competition) and worse, just plain stupid - I'm kind of sick and demented inside...it feels like tar creeping through my soul...I hope all of you are worse than me, so Jesus will let me in first. - Using the word "love" is a good thing. It keeps it real. - Running a revolution is not so easy as you might think - I like people, generally...but they're usually at their best in a one-on-one setting, where the expectations of the world aren't quite so pressing - Speaking of expectations, I've learned that there exists, in my mind, a super-Aaron....he's dead. - I expect nothing in particular from you. I don't need you to be super-you. I don't need you to hide the ugly parts (unless you're a rapist or CIA) I don't need you to be a friend, but I might appreciate it. I really don't even need you for my revolution. But, I'd appreciate you. I do expect you to be responsible and respectful, but if you're not, that's okay too. I don't expect you to do anything or be anybody that has to do with what your parents are/are not or expect you to be/not to be...that's kind of getting old (and I criticize myself here as well) - Trout streams are kind of neat - I didn't really understand what a friend was. I'm starting to get it figured out. - Always look on the bright side of life.Love,Aaron
Plagiarism, Wikipedia and Why I Don't Mind That Fisherman Should Have Been Illiterate
Originally Posted 07/26/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
Okay, class, our lesson today is about not being stupid. Sorry it's so long, but there's alot to say and it's good and it's on my mind, so deal...For those of you too lazy to read for ten minutes, here's a rundownI. A person should not allow his/her work to be identified with a specific name or organizationII. perhaps a pseudonym works, especially if the work is attributed to a mythical, legendary or heroic figure, transcendent of the pitfalls of man. This is the beauty of the bible and why it may actually be better to admit the unauthenticity of some books of the bible.III. Corporate authorship and a disregard for any concern of plagiarism or intellectual property accomplishes much in allowing a work to be valued as it should and not according to the author of the work. This is why wikipedia is brilliant. I came to realize today, while driving home from work, that five years of my life are and forever will be identified with three words. All the thoughts I had, all of the hopes and dreams, all of the effort and hours upon hours per week of toiling have been lost to an identity of a group. I only realized this the other day as I read a friend's blog where he identified a part of his life as "the skuf years" It hit me like a brick wall that my work, too, is identified inseperably with this name. What's the problem with this? It seems to me that being identified as such with a name (particularly the name of an arguably unsuccessful and certainly man-made group) devalues the work that was done. Now, it's not that I regret the work or think that it was done in vain or even view the work as unsuccessful in any way. But by being associated with the now defunct group, the work is devalued to those who may (or may not) have benefited from the work. With this in mind, I have today determined to at least attempt never again to allow my work to be identified with a name. Now, of course, I realize this is impossible because I have a name, which most of you who read this know and connecting the dots, identify these words with my name. (this isn't to mention the impossibility of separation from identity due to our society's infatuation with a success which depends on a personal identity) This inevitable identification with name brings us next to anonymity and pseudononymous authorship (specifically that in the bible) The author of I and II Peter, by using the name Peter attached a significance to his words that could otherwise never have been attained. And here's why...if Joe Early Christian puts his own name on the work, it takes on his identity and therefore is dependent upon Joe's contributions throughout his entire life, regardless of the powerful and far-reaching words that may have been in his work. So if Joe is a schmuck who managed to produce two awesome papers, his papers become the papers of a schmuck. However, if Joe produces two awesome papers and attributes them to Peter, then all we have are two papers attributed to Peter that contain powerful and far-reaching words and ideas. This brings us to the benefits of common property of ideas. The concept of plagiarism, as I understand it, did not exist in the ancient world (and probably developed as a result of the aforementioned infatuation with personal success) All ideas were put out and bleonged to the public good. This allows these ideas to build upon one another, idea altering idea and perspective re-centering perspective. Let's take the example of John. Many Christians would defend wholeheartedly the idea that John, the apostle selected by Jesus, wrote the book of John. But, to me, the idea that a community of believers contributed to the book over the course of a couple hundred of years is far more advantageous, regardless of its implications for the integrity of the biblical canon. The effects of the two approaches can be seen in a comparison of John to the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) because while the three are subject to the all too popular criticisms of being contradictory and inconsistent, John is transcendent of these issues due to the process of checks and balances inherrent in a system of corporate authorship and the free sharing of ideas such as might have been seen in the Johanine community. If this blog weren't long enough, I could go into my ideas about a community overcoming the fallibility of the individual man, but suffice it to say that I believe that by sacrificing personal identification and submitting my work to the common good without attachment to myself, I allow it to take on a more transcendent identity (especially if they have the good fortune to be judged and altered as necessary by others) They then may truly be judged for the words and ideas on the page and the integrity and results of the works rather than by my personal life and identity
Okay, class, our lesson today is about not being stupid. Sorry it's so long, but there's alot to say and it's good and it's on my mind, so deal...For those of you too lazy to read for ten minutes, here's a rundownI. A person should not allow his/her work to be identified with a specific name or organizationII. perhaps a pseudonym works, especially if the work is attributed to a mythical, legendary or heroic figure, transcendent of the pitfalls of man. This is the beauty of the bible and why it may actually be better to admit the unauthenticity of some books of the bible.III. Corporate authorship and a disregard for any concern of plagiarism or intellectual property accomplishes much in allowing a work to be valued as it should and not according to the author of the work. This is why wikipedia is brilliant. I came to realize today, while driving home from work, that five years of my life are and forever will be identified with three words. All the thoughts I had, all of the hopes and dreams, all of the effort and hours upon hours per week of toiling have been lost to an identity of a group. I only realized this the other day as I read a friend's blog where he identified a part of his life as "the skuf years" It hit me like a brick wall that my work, too, is identified inseperably with this name. What's the problem with this? It seems to me that being identified as such with a name (particularly the name of an arguably unsuccessful and certainly man-made group) devalues the work that was done. Now, it's not that I regret the work or think that it was done in vain or even view the work as unsuccessful in any way. But by being associated with the now defunct group, the work is devalued to those who may (or may not) have benefited from the work. With this in mind, I have today determined to at least attempt never again to allow my work to be identified with a name. Now, of course, I realize this is impossible because I have a name, which most of you who read this know and connecting the dots, identify these words with my name. (this isn't to mention the impossibility of separation from identity due to our society's infatuation with a success which depends on a personal identity) This inevitable identification with name brings us next to anonymity and pseudononymous authorship (specifically that in the bible) The author of I and II Peter, by using the name Peter attached a significance to his words that could otherwise never have been attained. And here's why...if Joe Early Christian puts his own name on the work, it takes on his identity and therefore is dependent upon Joe's contributions throughout his entire life, regardless of the powerful and far-reaching words that may have been in his work. So if Joe is a schmuck who managed to produce two awesome papers, his papers become the papers of a schmuck. However, if Joe produces two awesome papers and attributes them to Peter, then all we have are two papers attributed to Peter that contain powerful and far-reaching words and ideas. This brings us to the benefits of common property of ideas. The concept of plagiarism, as I understand it, did not exist in the ancient world (and probably developed as a result of the aforementioned infatuation with personal success) All ideas were put out and bleonged to the public good. This allows these ideas to build upon one another, idea altering idea and perspective re-centering perspective. Let's take the example of John. Many Christians would defend wholeheartedly the idea that John, the apostle selected by Jesus, wrote the book of John. But, to me, the idea that a community of believers contributed to the book over the course of a couple hundred of years is far more advantageous, regardless of its implications for the integrity of the biblical canon. The effects of the two approaches can be seen in a comparison of John to the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) because while the three are subject to the all too popular criticisms of being contradictory and inconsistent, John is transcendent of these issues due to the process of checks and balances inherrent in a system of corporate authorship and the free sharing of ideas such as might have been seen in the Johanine community. If this blog weren't long enough, I could go into my ideas about a community overcoming the fallibility of the individual man, but suffice it to say that I believe that by sacrificing personal identification and submitting my work to the common good without attachment to myself, I allow it to take on a more transcendent identity (especially if they have the good fortune to be judged and altered as necessary by others) They then may truly be judged for the words and ideas on the page and the integrity and results of the works rather than by my personal life and identity
Idolotrous heresy
Originally Posted 07/14/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
If you take a look at my friends, you'll see one named "Jesus". If you go to that page and examine Jesus's blog, you'll find an issue that I don't often devote enough thought to. Idolotry. Now, I don't want to get to preaching on my soap box or anything, but here's the thing....if I wear a cross or adorn myself with a cross, I expect to be judged. The cross, as a symbol, has become associated with all things Christian. Unfortunately, among many people I would encounter, these things would be viewed in a very negative light. There is a serious problem with this. By identifying myself as a Christian, it should not be assumed that I subscribe to the malicious and exclusive b.s. that the cross has come to symbolize. So, what am I getting at? I'm trying to say that this symbol, this idol, is the root of this judgement. Without it, people are left to judge me by my actions/words/myspace profile. Further, I find a profound beauty in the rigid devotion of the islaamic religion to restrict graven or pictoral images representing God. Granted that they perhaps go a little too far, but such restrictions clearly foster a profound sense of the superiority and omnipotence of God. All reason that I can access and even the bible point directly to the fact that man-made images scar the face of God.Of course, this post is a further example of my hypocrisy as I clearly have a picture of "Jesus" as my profile pic. But I think it's funny, so it's okay. Although, it could be argued that since Jesus is destroying the cross, this image, in fact, is a portrayal of my argument here. Which is both ironic and hypocritical...so I'll burn. So, in summation: Restricting God (or religion) to a man-made idol, image, symbol or doctrine is just that....a restriction of all that God (or religion) should be in both the individual's life and that of the civilization.
If you take a look at my friends, you'll see one named "Jesus". If you go to that page and examine Jesus's blog, you'll find an issue that I don't often devote enough thought to. Idolotry. Now, I don't want to get to preaching on my soap box or anything, but here's the thing....if I wear a cross or adorn myself with a cross, I expect to be judged. The cross, as a symbol, has become associated with all things Christian. Unfortunately, among many people I would encounter, these things would be viewed in a very negative light. There is a serious problem with this. By identifying myself as a Christian, it should not be assumed that I subscribe to the malicious and exclusive b.s. that the cross has come to symbolize. So, what am I getting at? I'm trying to say that this symbol, this idol, is the root of this judgement. Without it, people are left to judge me by my actions/words/myspace profile. Further, I find a profound beauty in the rigid devotion of the islaamic religion to restrict graven or pictoral images representing God. Granted that they perhaps go a little too far, but such restrictions clearly foster a profound sense of the superiority and omnipotence of God. All reason that I can access and even the bible point directly to the fact that man-made images scar the face of God.Of course, this post is a further example of my hypocrisy as I clearly have a picture of "Jesus" as my profile pic. But I think it's funny, so it's okay. Although, it could be argued that since Jesus is destroying the cross, this image, in fact, is a portrayal of my argument here. Which is both ironic and hypocritical...so I'll burn. So, in summation: Restricting God (or religion) to a man-made idol, image, symbol or doctrine is just that....a restriction of all that God (or religion) should be in both the individual's life and that of the civilization.
Definition of a "Retard"
Originally Posted 07/14/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
General rule 1: Anybody who upstarts an institution and names it after him/herself is a retard.
Richard Dawkins is a retard
Eckhart Tolle is a retard
Pat Robertson is a retard
Now I suppose this isn't universally true because Bill and Melinda Gates would then be retards, and while perhaps Billy G is at the root of many evil things, he is no retard. So...Generally speaking, anyone who behaves in a manner that upsets me or detracts in a significant way from that which is good in humanity is a retard.Thankyou and that is all.
Love,The Revolution
P.S. If you are mentally retarded, handicapped or disabled or if you are family or friend of such an individual...I'm obviously not talking about you so don't get all huffy or you'll run the risk of retard-ness as well.
General rule 1: Anybody who upstarts an institution and names it after him/herself is a retard.
Richard Dawkins is a retard
Eckhart Tolle is a retard
Pat Robertson is a retard
Now I suppose this isn't universally true because Bill and Melinda Gates would then be retards, and while perhaps Billy G is at the root of many evil things, he is no retard. So...Generally speaking, anyone who behaves in a manner that upsets me or detracts in a significant way from that which is good in humanity is a retard.Thankyou and that is all.
Love,The Revolution
P.S. If you are mentally retarded, handicapped or disabled or if you are family or friend of such an individual...I'm obviously not talking about you so don't get all huffy or you'll run the risk of retard-ness as well.
Why I Secretly Like Hippies
Originally Posted 07/03/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
One of the most profound ideas that I took away from my overpriced college education is the "marketplace of ideas". The gist is that if everyone is allowed to speak their ideas on any given issue, the retards on both sides will eventually be shown for who they are and in fact will balance each other out so that the best possible solution, stance, etc. may come to the forefront. It's a beautiful system by which the extreme left and the extreme right (the two most outspoken "groups") are not only the loudest but also the most insignificant in the end. Second, I was thinking today as I watched Charlie Rose, about the Bush Presidency. In truth, he's done some fairly decent things in the last month or so (attempted bilateral immigration with Ted Kennedy of all people, reached out to Putin which shows a general recognition of the idiocy of his bully diplomacy that has until now been utilized and now commuting not pardoning Libby which I believe shows that he made an ethical stand in forcing Libby to admit guilt) These three things, whether we like him or not and regardless of the other world-crushing mistakes he's made, symbolize three fairly ethical and compassionate decisions/causes. All this goes to say that our country has been in some serious turmoil before (the last half of the 19th century for example) Yes, our congress is absolutely ridiculous (what consequential reform have they passed in the last 4 years - and htis includes the new democratic house) and yes, our foreign policy is preposterous and yes our economy is a lie, but it could be worse and keeping in mind the whole marketplace of ideas theory, these are just the bad things, there are also good things and I had some sort of enlightened moment of happiness today that things will turn out alright But the best thing about it is, it has to stay a secret. If everyone knew that things will turn out alright, they'd stop making such a stinking fuss over everything and then we'd have no hippies and then we'd have no fundamentalist John Hagee lovers and then we'd have no marketplace of ideas and then we'd have no true solutions or conclussions to the issues taxing society. So. . . long live the hippies and the rednecks and may the revolution benefit from their downfall. Amen.
One of the most profound ideas that I took away from my overpriced college education is the "marketplace of ideas". The gist is that if everyone is allowed to speak their ideas on any given issue, the retards on both sides will eventually be shown for who they are and in fact will balance each other out so that the best possible solution, stance, etc. may come to the forefront. It's a beautiful system by which the extreme left and the extreme right (the two most outspoken "groups") are not only the loudest but also the most insignificant in the end. Second, I was thinking today as I watched Charlie Rose, about the Bush Presidency. In truth, he's done some fairly decent things in the last month or so (attempted bilateral immigration with Ted Kennedy of all people, reached out to Putin which shows a general recognition of the idiocy of his bully diplomacy that has until now been utilized and now commuting not pardoning Libby which I believe shows that he made an ethical stand in forcing Libby to admit guilt) These three things, whether we like him or not and regardless of the other world-crushing mistakes he's made, symbolize three fairly ethical and compassionate decisions/causes. All this goes to say that our country has been in some serious turmoil before (the last half of the 19th century for example) Yes, our congress is absolutely ridiculous (what consequential reform have they passed in the last 4 years - and htis includes the new democratic house) and yes, our foreign policy is preposterous and yes our economy is a lie, but it could be worse and keeping in mind the whole marketplace of ideas theory, these are just the bad things, there are also good things and I had some sort of enlightened moment of happiness today that things will turn out alright But the best thing about it is, it has to stay a secret. If everyone knew that things will turn out alright, they'd stop making such a stinking fuss over everything and then we'd have no hippies and then we'd have no fundamentalist John Hagee lovers and then we'd have no marketplace of ideas and then we'd have no true solutions or conclussions to the issues taxing society. So. . . long live the hippies and the rednecks and may the revolution benefit from their downfall. Amen.
glam worship/selling out
Originally posted 06/27/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the aformentioned revolution. It has more to do with me being a retard and unable to figure out life. The big question...At what point does genuine passion and belief in something become reduced to selling out to success/materiality? Example: (and not a terribly good one, but one that is freshest in my mind) I'm helping out on a worship team tonight for a "20-something" church service. For anyone who doesn't know me so well, I'm a huge fan of worship music/service/etc. As much as I despise many aspects of today's church and the abomination of religion and mythology so prevalent in our world, I find immense value in three things regarding church: fellowship of like-minded believers (that is to say those who take the same approach to a personal mythology/religion), liturgical tradition (a community solidifying divergent personal mythologies with a unified corporate mythology) and greatest among these three, worship/music/hymns (combines the transcendence of music with the selflessness of worship and the unification of the community) With that being said, what happens to the value of worship when it's infused with rock and roll, pizza party, Xtreme youth, materialist Christianity? Is it still worship through all the fog and haze? Or have we sold out to something completely superfluous? Same question exists with work...I make money and that's wonderful, but at what point do I say, "okay, this is interfering with my dreams, my bliss, my real work....I should be a hermit now."Can't enter it below, but I'm reading the new Africa edition of Vanity Fair...I bought it on a bit of an impulse, feeling guilty because i couldn't name more than six countries in Africa (and only four of those could I place geographically)
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the aformentioned revolution. It has more to do with me being a retard and unable to figure out life. The big question...At what point does genuine passion and belief in something become reduced to selling out to success/materiality? Example: (and not a terribly good one, but one that is freshest in my mind) I'm helping out on a worship team tonight for a "20-something" church service. For anyone who doesn't know me so well, I'm a huge fan of worship music/service/etc. As much as I despise many aspects of today's church and the abomination of religion and mythology so prevalent in our world, I find immense value in three things regarding church: fellowship of like-minded believers (that is to say those who take the same approach to a personal mythology/religion), liturgical tradition (a community solidifying divergent personal mythologies with a unified corporate mythology) and greatest among these three, worship/music/hymns (combines the transcendence of music with the selflessness of worship and the unification of the community) With that being said, what happens to the value of worship when it's infused with rock and roll, pizza party, Xtreme youth, materialist Christianity? Is it still worship through all the fog and haze? Or have we sold out to something completely superfluous? Same question exists with work...I make money and that's wonderful, but at what point do I say, "okay, this is interfering with my dreams, my bliss, my real work....I should be a hermit now."Can't enter it below, but I'm reading the new Africa edition of Vanity Fair...I bought it on a bit of an impulse, feeling guilty because i couldn't name more than six countries in Africa (and only four of those could I place geographically)
Caveman Religion
Originally posted 06/24/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one wait for another day. And by writing the following, I hope nobody is truly offended...It's not that I don't think science is great, because I do. I even side with Mr. Darwin and friends on the whole evolution thing (well about 70% of it anyway....not so much on the trans-speciation - I think I made up that word, I hope everyone knows that I refer to the gaps between species...i.e. chimps to human, lizard to dinosaur, etc. - but the adaptation and mutative genes thing is right on)Anyway, it kills me to see Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kandel and others rant about how primitive any religion is...continuing to call it a development of cavemen (which it was) but using such truth to imply that human advancement requires the dissolution of religion. This is ridiculous. I say this primarily because, as a student of religion, I see distinct patterns in the message that these great scientists are putting out there. Indeed, their message mirrors the structures and formulas that we have identified in human mythology. What they are doing in decrying religion is building up their own counter-religion that while stemming from science is itself a mythology and soon will be a religion complete with doctrine, tradition, scripture, liturgy and the whole nine yards...even faith in beliefs that cannot necessarily be proven as fact....
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one wait for another day. And by writing the following, I hope nobody is truly offended...It's not that I don't think science is great, because I do. I even side with Mr. Darwin and friends on the whole evolution thing (well about 70% of it anyway....not so much on the trans-speciation - I think I made up that word, I hope everyone knows that I refer to the gaps between species...i.e. chimps to human, lizard to dinosaur, etc. - but the adaptation and mutative genes thing is right on)Anyway, it kills me to see Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kandel and others rant about how primitive any religion is...continuing to call it a development of cavemen (which it was) but using such truth to imply that human advancement requires the dissolution of religion. This is ridiculous. I say this primarily because, as a student of religion, I see distinct patterns in the message that these great scientists are putting out there. Indeed, their message mirrors the structures and formulas that we have identified in human mythology. What they are doing in decrying religion is building up their own counter-religion that while stemming from science is itself a mythology and soon will be a religion complete with doctrine, tradition, scripture, liturgy and the whole nine yards...even faith in beliefs that cannot necessarily be proven as fact....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
