How do we respond to the crisis of our modern day, when our gods of prosperity fail us, when the vehicles of our ascension break down and begin to lose altitude?
If the world is a stage, I believe that humanity has stepped off of it for the last twenty or so years. Instead, we have erected objects of our own image onto the stage, considering ourselves to be godlike, as if such an object, through observation and encouragement, can bring ourselves into enlightenment.
If man is flawed, will not the creatures of its own design be flawed as well? Should we not consider the pendulum swing backward to follow the swing forward? Many look at history and shout "progress!", but history is equally full of failure. For every king there has been the death of a king. For every great world power, there has been an end. Yet we treat this age of technology and information as if it WON'T! On what basis do we have such a notion?
Faith, of course.
We all have faith in something. Apparently, we had faith in subprime mortgages and the unstoppable cash flow of the auto industry, to the point where America allowed itself to send its jobs to foreign countries, under the assumption that its current leading markets would STAY leading markets. And now we put our faith in a new government administration, as if by simply moving the political pieces around a bit on the chessboard it will change anything other than the chessboard.
How do we respond to the current crisis? Introspection. We need to re-evaluate what our priorities are in life. Is it our dreams and hopes, like our pampering mothers taught us were so vital and important? Or is it our RELATIONSHIPS? Spending time with friends and family, searching, nay, CHASING love? What is it we are investing our time, money, energy into, and WHO are we doing it for: ourselves or others?
Because doing things for ourselves is what continues to get us in these kinds of messes, over and over and over... We keep wanting to create our gods, our longing self-expressions, our fingerprints on this world, but for whom? To what end? Have we forgotten that there is always an end?
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Wanderlust
There are times when certain ideas seem to collide simultaneously... And suddenly they all become the same idea.
If you haven't seen Wall-E yet, you are doing yourself an incredible disservice. It is literally the best film of the year thus far. Sorry, Kung Fu Panda... :-)
The movie brings to the big screen an old idea, but applies it futuristically. What's surprising is that it has been this long since we went into space and it that this movie seems to be the first to have done so. The idea is this: why do we go into space?
There seem to be two responsibilities that tug at us as a species: responsibility and wanderlust. I would choose a better word than 'responsibility' but one does not immediately come to mind. It is an old metaphor; namely, the parable of the Prodigal Son. The incorrect impulse would be to immediately criticize the son for shirking his responsibilities and leaving his family's estate and legacy. The father does not criticize him. There is a certain necessity in the son's leaving.
Heck, the argument goes even farther back. Was it a good or bad thing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden? Some religions would say no, some would say yes.
If man were to enter space, would doing so be a sort of destiny... Or is he abandoning the responsibility associated with Earth. Or can leaving Earth be, in itself, its own responsibility?
I thought entered my head while I was reflecting on a dream... If it were possible for a man to see every corner of space, every galaxy, every solar system... would he be satisfied? The answer to that question is: if a man saw every inch of every corner of the known world, would he be satisfied? If he saw everything there was to see in his own country, would he be satisfied? The answer is absolutely "no".
Yet we chase after some inescapable wanderlust. Is it truth that we seek? This, to me, seems folly, to search, like Fox Mulder, for the unfindable "truth" that is out there. It seems, to me, as stoic and ridiculous as a man who stares at a rock endlessly, attempting to find meaning in it. There is no more meaning in a solitary rock than there is in a million rocks. It is a rock. And there are different rocks, each with their own uniqueness, beauty, and perhaps even purpose.
If there is no preference then, no advantage in whether or not to live standing still or a rolling stone, what should we ask from life then?
Living is not defined by our circumstances. I will continue to say that.
Malachi wrote, "I the Lord do not change. So that you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."
What does Wall-E teach us? The robot finds unspeakable beauty in the universe, including the marvels of human ambition. The robot teaches us that there are things that are valuable, that should be cherished instead of used to meet an end. There are things that we throw away in order to go on a journey, that should not have been left behind in the first place (namely, Planet Earth itself).
Perhaps our wanderlust is not calling us to any particular place... but to life.
If you haven't seen Wall-E yet, you are doing yourself an incredible disservice. It is literally the best film of the year thus far. Sorry, Kung Fu Panda... :-)
The movie brings to the big screen an old idea, but applies it futuristically. What's surprising is that it has been this long since we went into space and it that this movie seems to be the first to have done so. The idea is this: why do we go into space?
There seem to be two responsibilities that tug at us as a species: responsibility and wanderlust. I would choose a better word than 'responsibility' but one does not immediately come to mind. It is an old metaphor; namely, the parable of the Prodigal Son. The incorrect impulse would be to immediately criticize the son for shirking his responsibilities and leaving his family's estate and legacy. The father does not criticize him. There is a certain necessity in the son's leaving.
Heck, the argument goes even farther back. Was it a good or bad thing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden? Some religions would say no, some would say yes.
If man were to enter space, would doing so be a sort of destiny... Or is he abandoning the responsibility associated with Earth. Or can leaving Earth be, in itself, its own responsibility?
I thought entered my head while I was reflecting on a dream... If it were possible for a man to see every corner of space, every galaxy, every solar system... would he be satisfied? The answer to that question is: if a man saw every inch of every corner of the known world, would he be satisfied? If he saw everything there was to see in his own country, would he be satisfied? The answer is absolutely "no".
Yet we chase after some inescapable wanderlust. Is it truth that we seek? This, to me, seems folly, to search, like Fox Mulder, for the unfindable "truth" that is out there. It seems, to me, as stoic and ridiculous as a man who stares at a rock endlessly, attempting to find meaning in it. There is no more meaning in a solitary rock than there is in a million rocks. It is a rock. And there are different rocks, each with their own uniqueness, beauty, and perhaps even purpose.
If there is no preference then, no advantage in whether or not to live standing still or a rolling stone, what should we ask from life then?
Living is not defined by our circumstances. I will continue to say that.
Malachi wrote, "I the Lord do not change. So that you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."
What does Wall-E teach us? The robot finds unspeakable beauty in the universe, including the marvels of human ambition. The robot teaches us that there are things that are valuable, that should be cherished instead of used to meet an end. There are things that we throw away in order to go on a journey, that should not have been left behind in the first place (namely, Planet Earth itself).
Perhaps our wanderlust is not calling us to any particular place... but to life.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Godsmile
For what reasons do we choose? Is choice instantaneous? I think that it is, when it comes to personal choices that define you.
We are, at this very moment, who we are. We will be something different later. The question is, whether or not we will choose to be who we are at this very moment. Because we will only get one chance to live that moment, then it is gone.
Futuristically, we attempt to be something that we are not now but hope to be later. At first, nothing seems wrong with this. But then, if we fail to exist the way we ARE in the present, does this impact the way we are SUPPOSED to be, in the future? If we miss those moments, doesn't it throw us off track? Something seems to be lost, I think, otherwise there would be no value in living in the present.
The value, the purpose, I believe, is being the way we were MEANT to be. Perhaps we were designed this way. But we most certainly are the way we are now. To attempt to be something different can only ultimately make us unhappy.
Have you ever envied animals? I think that it is easy to do if you take the time to watch them.
There is a joy that is innate in our souls, something that lights up when we are "driven" to do something and we do it. A child sees a flower, picks it, and shows it to someone. No one told him to. He WANTED to.
And he did it.
We are, at this very moment, who we are. We will be something different later. The question is, whether or not we will choose to be who we are at this very moment. Because we will only get one chance to live that moment, then it is gone.
Futuristically, we attempt to be something that we are not now but hope to be later. At first, nothing seems wrong with this. But then, if we fail to exist the way we ARE in the present, does this impact the way we are SUPPOSED to be, in the future? If we miss those moments, doesn't it throw us off track? Something seems to be lost, I think, otherwise there would be no value in living in the present.
The value, the purpose, I believe, is being the way we were MEANT to be. Perhaps we were designed this way. But we most certainly are the way we are now. To attempt to be something different can only ultimately make us unhappy.
Have you ever envied animals? I think that it is easy to do if you take the time to watch them.
There is a joy that is innate in our souls, something that lights up when we are "driven" to do something and we do it. A child sees a flower, picks it, and shows it to someone. No one told him to. He WANTED to.
And he did it.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Videogames Are an Artform
Off topic a bit for this post, but relevant I think, as you shall see.
I think the ultimate argument for this perspective is the fact that this blog itself was inspired by a videogame. To me, that is the sign that art exists within the medium.
The main problem that arises is that the videogame industry itself, like the movie industry, is full of an endless pile of crap. This is the crap that rots your brain, makes your body fat, ruins your relationships... But there is, in fact, a clear methodology, an art form if you will, to making games that are stimulating.
Brain stimulation, I think, is the main draw of art. Something strikes us, whether a string of music or a shot of cinematography or a description of articulate words, that stimulates our experience, some alternative sense.
There are certain mediums that conglomerate multiple arts into one, making the art itself a proper balance of delivery, that each complements the other. This is how one might describe the art of movies, but it is also how you could as easily describe videogames.
The only thing holding back people from thinking this way, it seems, is mere prejudice. We grew up being told by society and our parents that videogames were somehow base. This is simply false, and society is finally beginning to change it's views. Scientific studies have proven that none of the videogame myths about brain rot or obesity are true. Let's face it guys, how our body develops is based on LIFESTYLE choices, not whether or not we play Halo.
If videogames are an artform, how are they so? What should I compare them to? Ironically, I thinking the closest artform to videogames are not movies, but books.
Movies are an extension of theater. Both artforms are presentational, meant to be observed, with the main goal being the immersion of the 'audience' into the 'performance'. Perhaps even, the audience will project itself ONTO the character onstage or onscreen.
Books are almost entirely reliant on the reader. The words are merely tools of communication, but it is the reader that creates the experience. Whether or not that experience is effective has somewhat to do with the effort of the reader to participate. You can probably see where I'm going with this. Videogames are 'played' (and for the record, we're talking about solitary experiences, not multiplayer games, which have more in common with traditional types of games). Being played, they are entirely reliant on the 'player' for the experience to come about. But unlike books, the player is not only initiating the experience, he is also a DETERMINANT for that experience, meaning that the experience is unique to the individual that plays.
The art then, is not merely in presentation (the limits of movies), but in the variety of the experience as well.
The original Super Mario Bros. is commonly used as an example of a quintessentially perfect game. It simultaneously limits the player in what he/she can do, but also provides the player with a variety of discoveries and choices. You can run through a level, jump to hit blocks, jump on enemies or avoid them, choose whether or not to take secrets, all within a presentation that is phenomenally precise, practical, and everything with purpose.
If the medium itself has a level of artistic theory, then why can a videogame not be more than that? Why can a videogame not inspire you as easily as a movie or song? The reality is that it CAN and it HAS already, but very few people know this or have even played the games that have.
The potential is very great, but the question is, when will THE videogame that establishes the legitimacy of an artform occur? I think it already has, but cultural prejudices have prevented it, but perhaps in the era of blockbusters the world is looking for that blockbuster. We'll see when that happens.
One last thing, why am I posting about this? This is the main point: that videogames, more than any other artform, have the ability to allow us to teach OURSELVES about OURSELVES. The player itself is an artist. In other words, videogames at its core are an exercise in self-exploration, kind of like this blog and blogs like it. With blogs, we try to communicate to others our own experience and allow others to interact with it. You might call the blogger the "designer" and the readers the "players". ;-)
I think the ultimate argument for this perspective is the fact that this blog itself was inspired by a videogame. To me, that is the sign that art exists within the medium.
The main problem that arises is that the videogame industry itself, like the movie industry, is full of an endless pile of crap. This is the crap that rots your brain, makes your body fat, ruins your relationships... But there is, in fact, a clear methodology, an art form if you will, to making games that are stimulating.
Brain stimulation, I think, is the main draw of art. Something strikes us, whether a string of music or a shot of cinematography or a description of articulate words, that stimulates our experience, some alternative sense.
There are certain mediums that conglomerate multiple arts into one, making the art itself a proper balance of delivery, that each complements the other. This is how one might describe the art of movies, but it is also how you could as easily describe videogames.
The only thing holding back people from thinking this way, it seems, is mere prejudice. We grew up being told by society and our parents that videogames were somehow base. This is simply false, and society is finally beginning to change it's views. Scientific studies have proven that none of the videogame myths about brain rot or obesity are true. Let's face it guys, how our body develops is based on LIFESTYLE choices, not whether or not we play Halo.
If videogames are an artform, how are they so? What should I compare them to? Ironically, I thinking the closest artform to videogames are not movies, but books.
Movies are an extension of theater. Both artforms are presentational, meant to be observed, with the main goal being the immersion of the 'audience' into the 'performance'. Perhaps even, the audience will project itself ONTO the character onstage or onscreen.
Books are almost entirely reliant on the reader. The words are merely tools of communication, but it is the reader that creates the experience. Whether or not that experience is effective has somewhat to do with the effort of the reader to participate. You can probably see where I'm going with this. Videogames are 'played' (and for the record, we're talking about solitary experiences, not multiplayer games, which have more in common with traditional types of games). Being played, they are entirely reliant on the 'player' for the experience to come about. But unlike books, the player is not only initiating the experience, he is also a DETERMINANT for that experience, meaning that the experience is unique to the individual that plays.
The art then, is not merely in presentation (the limits of movies), but in the variety of the experience as well.
The original Super Mario Bros. is commonly used as an example of a quintessentially perfect game. It simultaneously limits the player in what he/she can do, but also provides the player with a variety of discoveries and choices. You can run through a level, jump to hit blocks, jump on enemies or avoid them, choose whether or not to take secrets, all within a presentation that is phenomenally precise, practical, and everything with purpose.
If the medium itself has a level of artistic theory, then why can a videogame not be more than that? Why can a videogame not inspire you as easily as a movie or song? The reality is that it CAN and it HAS already, but very few people know this or have even played the games that have.
The potential is very great, but the question is, when will THE videogame that establishes the legitimacy of an artform occur? I think it already has, but cultural prejudices have prevented it, but perhaps in the era of blockbusters the world is looking for that blockbuster. We'll see when that happens.
One last thing, why am I posting about this? This is the main point: that videogames, more than any other artform, have the ability to allow us to teach OURSELVES about OURSELVES. The player itself is an artist. In other words, videogames at its core are an exercise in self-exploration, kind of like this blog and blogs like it. With blogs, we try to communicate to others our own experience and allow others to interact with it. You might call the blogger the "designer" and the readers the "players". ;-)
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Blog is Back in Town
As usual, my internet activity is regulated by the internet activity of others. Since my close friends are active on the blogtrain, here I am too.
So what's new with me? Well, besides work, I'm attempting to recover from an artistic slump. These slumps tend to occur when I'm failing to live up to my side of the whole 'God-me' relationship.
What can I say? I'm still recovering...
One thing that HAS improved since my last post... I GOT MARRIED! Marriage has benefits that no one could possibly imagine until it is experienced for yourself. Thanks, God, for inventing it. If you want a lesson in recovery, get a wife. Suddenly, your ideas, assumptions, and expectations for life start to appear lacking. We don't come properly equipped with the ability to love like we want to...
So, yeah! Marriage is a good thing. Moral of today. Viva la post!
So what's new with me? Well, besides work, I'm attempting to recover from an artistic slump. These slumps tend to occur when I'm failing to live up to my side of the whole 'God-me' relationship.
What can I say? I'm still recovering...
One thing that HAS improved since my last post... I GOT MARRIED! Marriage has benefits that no one could possibly imagine until it is experienced for yourself. Thanks, God, for inventing it. If you want a lesson in recovery, get a wife. Suddenly, your ideas, assumptions, and expectations for life start to appear lacking. We don't come properly equipped with the ability to love like we want to...
So, yeah! Marriage is a good thing. Moral of today. Viva la post!
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Wow.
Holy cow, it's been forever since I posted on here. Well, I'm getting married, folks. That's all there is too it. Um, let's see. How can I tie this in with my blog theme?
...
OK! I got it!
I'm learning a lot right now about the idea of two becoming one in marriage. You really have to shift your mindset. You've spent the majority of your life thinking about yourself, how to better yourself, how to get where you want to go. But that shifts, at least, if you want a healthy marriage, you have to starting playing as a team.
You become so intimate with the person you're with, you've invested so much emotionally, that to ignore the others needs and desires literally is to hurt yourself. You risk putting distance between yourself and the person you've come to rely on for the majority of your personal emotional needs.
It's not just an emotional thing, though. In a spiritual sense, God put the two of you together for a reason, because you are a more powerful force together than as an individual. This may not be the case for everyone. People can be plenty powerful tools without a significant other, but if a union is under God, I believe that God intends it for the use of His Kingdom. So you have to keep your relationship as sacred as your own heart.
Then, of course, there's the physical and mental stuff. The physical stuff is kind of obvious. But you have to think like a team, too, change your mentality. Your brain starts using a lot less I's and a lot more WE's.
So, stoicism. The thing I'm recovering from. Well, if there's one thing I've learned the most from my relationship is that my words aren't that profound if there's no one there to read them. Context, that's the only place that wisdom has its use. Maybe that's why I don't post here anymore. I've come to value the need to be actively in relationships and to express and define myself within them rather than outside them. Still a stoic? Yep. But I'm getting there. But it's not about me anymore, and whether you're getting married or not, that's a good thing all around.
...
OK! I got it!
I'm learning a lot right now about the idea of two becoming one in marriage. You really have to shift your mindset. You've spent the majority of your life thinking about yourself, how to better yourself, how to get where you want to go. But that shifts, at least, if you want a healthy marriage, you have to starting playing as a team.
You become so intimate with the person you're with, you've invested so much emotionally, that to ignore the others needs and desires literally is to hurt yourself. You risk putting distance between yourself and the person you've come to rely on for the majority of your personal emotional needs.
It's not just an emotional thing, though. In a spiritual sense, God put the two of you together for a reason, because you are a more powerful force together than as an individual. This may not be the case for everyone. People can be plenty powerful tools without a significant other, but if a union is under God, I believe that God intends it for the use of His Kingdom. So you have to keep your relationship as sacred as your own heart.
Then, of course, there's the physical and mental stuff. The physical stuff is kind of obvious. But you have to think like a team, too, change your mentality. Your brain starts using a lot less I's and a lot more WE's.
So, stoicism. The thing I'm recovering from. Well, if there's one thing I've learned the most from my relationship is that my words aren't that profound if there's no one there to read them. Context, that's the only place that wisdom has its use. Maybe that's why I don't post here anymore. I've come to value the need to be actively in relationships and to express and define myself within them rather than outside them. Still a stoic? Yep. But I'm getting there. But it's not about me anymore, and whether you're getting married or not, that's a good thing all around.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Not me, not me.
It is so, so, so, so, so easy... to focus on other people's problems.
I remember being a little kid. I think we all were at some point. And at some point, something happens where both you and your friend get into trouble. Sternly, you're both confronted by a parent, who calls for you both to explain yourselves. This is a measure of guilt recognition. The parent wants you to come out, say that what you did is wrong and that your guilt is proof of that. Of course, this does not happen. What happens?
Parent: What did you do wrong?
Kid 1: Well he did this.
Kid 2: But he did that.
Kid 1: Yeah well, he started it.
Kid 2: You started it.
Kid 1: It's his fault.
Kid 2: It's his fault.
No one can escape this. I don't understand people that keep track of which sins they haven't committed. Some people think they don't lie. These kids are comparing the sticks in their brother's eye while ignoring the planks in their own. Sure, these kids grow up, and then they do the same thing, except this time while pretending that they have the other's best interest at heart:
Grown-up 1: He's made the wrong choices. I'll show him the right ones.
Grown-up 2: He's not looking at it from my point of view. If he would listen to me, he'd understand.
Grown-up 1: I'm trying to help you.
Grown-up 2: I'm trying to help you.
What if God's the parent? Maybe when we make mistakes with people he asks us what we did wrong instead of telling us what to do straight out. But instead of trying to HELP OURSELVES, we get caught up in our guilt and start playing the blame-game. Maybe we're trying to distract ourselves from ourselves because it's easier to deal with other people's problems.
This relates to stoicism. I find myself trying to be strong so I can solve a problem, but sometimes I find I'm the problem. Almost always, if I am feeling sorry for myself or judgmental of someone, it's my problem.
I don't think there's room for judges in the church. There's only one chair and it's occupied.
So, how do you solve the disagreement? You don't. You admit defeat and make a choice to love yourself and to love the other. You love yourself by digging into your heart and pulling the crap out of it so you can see it. You love the other by apologizing. And there's no third step of apologizing to God. He teaches us if we love others we love Him. In other words, if I apologize to God and don't apologize to the person, my prayers still count for something, just not very much.
... It's so much easier to not love at all.
I remember being a little kid. I think we all were at some point. And at some point, something happens where both you and your friend get into trouble. Sternly, you're both confronted by a parent, who calls for you both to explain yourselves. This is a measure of guilt recognition. The parent wants you to come out, say that what you did is wrong and that your guilt is proof of that. Of course, this does not happen. What happens?
Parent: What did you do wrong?
Kid 1: Well he did this.
Kid 2: But he did that.
Kid 1: Yeah well, he started it.
Kid 2: You started it.
Kid 1: It's his fault.
Kid 2: It's his fault.
No one can escape this. I don't understand people that keep track of which sins they haven't committed. Some people think they don't lie. These kids are comparing the sticks in their brother's eye while ignoring the planks in their own. Sure, these kids grow up, and then they do the same thing, except this time while pretending that they have the other's best interest at heart:
Grown-up 1: He's made the wrong choices. I'll show him the right ones.
Grown-up 2: He's not looking at it from my point of view. If he would listen to me, he'd understand.
Grown-up 1: I'm trying to help you.
Grown-up 2: I'm trying to help you.
What if God's the parent? Maybe when we make mistakes with people he asks us what we did wrong instead of telling us what to do straight out. But instead of trying to HELP OURSELVES, we get caught up in our guilt and start playing the blame-game. Maybe we're trying to distract ourselves from ourselves because it's easier to deal with other people's problems.
This relates to stoicism. I find myself trying to be strong so I can solve a problem, but sometimes I find I'm the problem. Almost always, if I am feeling sorry for myself or judgmental of someone, it's my problem.
I don't think there's room for judges in the church. There's only one chair and it's occupied.
So, how do you solve the disagreement? You don't. You admit defeat and make a choice to love yourself and to love the other. You love yourself by digging into your heart and pulling the crap out of it so you can see it. You love the other by apologizing. And there's no third step of apologizing to God. He teaches us if we love others we love Him. In other words, if I apologize to God and don't apologize to the person, my prayers still count for something, just not very much.
... It's so much easier to not love at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
