Fact #1: Everybody loves something.
Fact #2: Not everybody loves something useful.
Think of 1984. Remember the part with rats? When I say everybody loves something, everybody loves something like everybody hates a 1984 rat. This inverted rat, this something, inspires, burns with desire, and refuses to be shunned. Something is holy.
By useful, I mean utility. Useful cloths, shelters, and feeds. Something useful can be made a career. It brings home the proverbial bacon.
Desires are filled because people have put in the work and effort to create them. On one side of desire is passive reveling. The other side houses active motion.
For every story read, there was one written.
For every meal eaten, one was prepared.
For every successful business, a plan was created and pressed.
For every game enjoyed, a designer.
Behind every movie hides script, actor, and setting.
Every quality flight requires a pilot.
Every picture denotes a photographer.
And within every grand painting lives an equally grand artist.
I love many things. But for most, my love is passive. Failure is not an option when no action occurs. Every tried to get a couch potato to exercise? It is equally hard to instill passion in passive desire.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Friday, April 08, 2005
Depth
I had a conversation a while ago about depth which at the time left me a bit disillusioned and frustrated. The conversation was relatively short in duration, but I have always remembered it.
My family owns a piano moving company so a major part of my informative years involved sitting in a truck driving to a move. I usually napped or read during the trips. Due to my reclusive nature, I typically refrained from speaking. But every once in a while I tried to open up and hold conversations with whoever was in the seat next to me. This time my brother was at the helm.
I don't remember how the conversion begin, but my memory picks up with me stating some life aspirations. I described how I wanted to be a thinker and write books on such topics. My brother, upon hearing, inquired after some specifics. What kind of things would I write about? The obvious answer of course was "Deep things." I was feeling particularity clever with my next phrase, "Ya, deep things. Like what is depth?" I was inwardly congratulating myself for thinking of something I believed to be a sufficient answer when my brother began to chuckle and stated that thinking about depth wasn't deep at all. Honestly, I was taken aback. Philosophical depth seemed like a truly intelligent thing to consider. The problem was, I couldn't explain why I thought that. The only thing left to do was sit in silence and steam. Its a bit annoying to explain what you want to do later in life and have your example shoved back in your face. It's even more annoying to have no response.
I still think depth was a pretty good answer. Later, for one of my classes, I had to read a book called Moral Wisdom and Good Lives by John Kekes who had a significant section dealing with what he conceived depth to be. Did I know that at the time? No. But I get the feeling that most people don't consider depth to be deep at all. Depth, to most, has a simple definition. That which is not shallow. Such a definition doesn't describe or define depth at all. It is too pat and contained to fully describe a term meant for something extensive and incontainable. The more one actually considers what depth is, beyond simply that which is not shallow, the more there is to consider.
The previous post contains a story. It is by Kierkegaard. I didn't mention it in the last post because I didn't know at the time. Forgive me.
My family owns a piano moving company so a major part of my informative years involved sitting in a truck driving to a move. I usually napped or read during the trips. Due to my reclusive nature, I typically refrained from speaking. But every once in a while I tried to open up and hold conversations with whoever was in the seat next to me. This time my brother was at the helm.
I don't remember how the conversion begin, but my memory picks up with me stating some life aspirations. I described how I wanted to be a thinker and write books on such topics. My brother, upon hearing, inquired after some specifics. What kind of things would I write about? The obvious answer of course was "Deep things." I was feeling particularity clever with my next phrase, "Ya, deep things. Like what is depth?" I was inwardly congratulating myself for thinking of something I believed to be a sufficient answer when my brother began to chuckle and stated that thinking about depth wasn't deep at all. Honestly, I was taken aback. Philosophical depth seemed like a truly intelligent thing to consider. The problem was, I couldn't explain why I thought that. The only thing left to do was sit in silence and steam. Its a bit annoying to explain what you want to do later in life and have your example shoved back in your face. It's even more annoying to have no response.
I still think depth was a pretty good answer. Later, for one of my classes, I had to read a book called Moral Wisdom and Good Lives by John Kekes who had a significant section dealing with what he conceived depth to be. Did I know that at the time? No. But I get the feeling that most people don't consider depth to be deep at all. Depth, to most, has a simple definition. That which is not shallow. Such a definition doesn't describe or define depth at all. It is too pat and contained to fully describe a term meant for something extensive and incontainable. The more one actually considers what depth is, beyond simply that which is not shallow, the more there is to consider.
The previous post contains a story. It is by Kierkegaard. I didn't mention it in the last post because I didn't know at the time. Forgive me.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Out to Prove Ones Sanity
Recently I heard an interesting anecdote, maybe a parable, that reality promptly proved valid. It reads as follows.
A man had been held in a mental institute for fifteen years. Eventually, through good behavior and improvement during his sessions with a psychologist, the man was granted his freedom. Not dull, this man knew that once he entered the world at large, he would be judged poorly for his lengthy internment in a mental hospital. The impending judgment bothered the man greatly. In the weeks prior to his release, the man considered various options or methods he could employ to prove, undeniably, his complete sanity. Upon careful consideration, the man decided that upon his release he would express a confirmed truth. Once the world knew he understood truth, then no one would deny his sanity.
The day came and the man left. Having little money, he began to walk to the nearest train station. The streets on the way were crowded. In the middle of a particularly thick cluster of people near the busiest intersection, he decided to prove his sanity.
And shouted at the top of his lungs, "The world is round!"
Those nearest looked at him like he was crazy.
Thus ends the story.
A few days after I heard this story, I came across an individuals website. This individual claimed to be a Christian, and, in step with their perceived duty to enlighten the world, they viciously attacked anyone expressing contrary views. The individual made copious use of both profanity and bible quotations, mixed with libel and judgment, to spread their brand of the gospel. Now, I question nearly all of their proclaimed theology, but I question the method of persuasion even more. They are like the man in the story, only instead of yelling, "The world is round!" they declares it flat. What possible good will it do to present truth if it is packaged so carelessly that no one pays it any attention? Some people, like the individual on the internet and the man in the story, are really out of step with reality.
A man had been held in a mental institute for fifteen years. Eventually, through good behavior and improvement during his sessions with a psychologist, the man was granted his freedom. Not dull, this man knew that once he entered the world at large, he would be judged poorly for his lengthy internment in a mental hospital. The impending judgment bothered the man greatly. In the weeks prior to his release, the man considered various options or methods he could employ to prove, undeniably, his complete sanity. Upon careful consideration, the man decided that upon his release he would express a confirmed truth. Once the world knew he understood truth, then no one would deny his sanity.
The day came and the man left. Having little money, he began to walk to the nearest train station. The streets on the way were crowded. In the middle of a particularly thick cluster of people near the busiest intersection, he decided to prove his sanity.
And shouted at the top of his lungs, "The world is round!"
Those nearest looked at him like he was crazy.
Thus ends the story.
A few days after I heard this story, I came across an individuals website. This individual claimed to be a Christian, and, in step with their perceived duty to enlighten the world, they viciously attacked anyone expressing contrary views. The individual made copious use of both profanity and bible quotations, mixed with libel and judgment, to spread their brand of the gospel. Now, I question nearly all of their proclaimed theology, but I question the method of persuasion even more. They are like the man in the story, only instead of yelling, "The world is round!" they declares it flat. What possible good will it do to present truth if it is packaged so carelessly that no one pays it any attention? Some people, like the individual on the internet and the man in the story, are really out of step with reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)