Tangled webs

People don't know it, but they have something more than voiceprints that are unique to them when it comes to language. And that something, rather subliminal in nature, is a number. It's not a number assigned to their voiceprints either. It's a mean that comes from dividing their speech into utterance segments of 50 or 100 words (100 is optimal). This mean can stretch across several hours of speech if necessary.

In casual speech, a person's utterances respect the mean, meaning that nearly all the 50 or 100 word segments are within one standard deviation of the mean. But, we don't always respect the mean in our utterances. Sometimes our emotions are aroused. We have moments of heightened awareness. When such an occasion arises, it shows in our speech number. That is, people are aware of their words for one reason or another, so they choose them more carefully. This affects the speech number because then the words spoken don't respect the mean. They trend higher, many times above the 1st standard deviation from the mean, and sometimes above the second deviation from the mean.

And just why would people choose words more carefully when frightened or their status quo threatened? Well, because choosing to tell the truth might incriminate them. At least that is one reason for choosing words carefully. Another is to rehearse a story so that no matter how intense the feelings are in answering questions or having to admit to anything, they can rely on the rehearsed speech with carefully chosen words.

There's a little more to it. The speech number referred to is the type-token ratio. That would be the number of non-duplicated words to the number of duplicated words. Americans start to repeat words, on average, after the 15th word is spoken, words like articles and prepositions or key words that form the basis of ideas. TTRs in 50 or 100 word segments yield an average. So, when a rehearsed speech or a nervous utterance is underway, words don't get duplicated so much.

Neat trick, huh! It's hard to manipulate the TTR. So all you guilty souls out there who are lying your way through some bad habits, you never know when your TTR could just be the culprit that snares you in its net. Sir Walter Scott pegged it 200 years ago in his poem Marmion.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive.

(Canto vi, Stanza 17)

Just another peeve - I've got too many

Translation prinicples exist when going from one language to another. Thus, when translating Caesar's Gallic wars, for instance, a person has to know at least the vocabulary of Latin, but much more enters in. Most language students today recognize that a language is more easily learned when knowledge of the culture is also learned. Knowing what triggers a phrase helps in remembering when to generate the phrase.

I was sitting in a class today, when the teacher took a direction that would have better been served if some language preparation had been done prior to the direction. The particular direction depended solely on the translation from another language in literal terms. The outcome would have been quite different if the language had been taken in figurative terms. This is where language principles come in. Native speakers know when something can be taken literally or not. Native speakers understand, for example, parody, irony, sarcasm, and other satirical features of speech. Of course, the teacher was not a native speaker of the original language, so he couldn't know what a native might have thought. But, since he was using a translation for his discussion, I don't know why it didn't occur to him to find out if someone else might have known what the native people could have thought? Why do people park their brains when discussing Biblical literature?

As you can tell it's a pet peeve of mine. People are too trusting of a conservative institution producing conservative translators. By conservative I mean that the translators don't fully employ the principles of translation. One more fully understands the Gallic Wars, for instance, when one also understands Latin, the Roman war culture, Roman values in general, Roman views about enemies such as triumphal procession, etc. But these priniciples are many times set aside when reading for a particular view in the passages of English translated Bibles. If students learning a language know the value of culture and pragmatics when learning a language, then those who propose to teach a translated document might do well to consider the same.

Ah-h-h! It's been a peeve of mine since I was 19 learning language in a university that teachers of religious documents have special rules for themselves, a narrower set. 3 1/2 decades later, nothing's changed. Que lastima! Me genoito!

Loving to see liars squirm when nailed

People lie all the time. The greatest teacher of all said, though, that people speak from the storehouse of treasures found in the heart. I take "heart" to mean the psyche, so I study the area of psychology and language, and presto, one can tell when those lies are being created. It's really a little fun to know that the liar has to squirm for a little while, while you or someone you have related the secret to grills the liar for the truth.

Here's an example. The word "well" has 4 uses, 3 of which are negative in nature. One of the uses means that someone is in outright disagreement with what was said. Another use means that a person is searching for common ground with the other person in the conversation in order to continue the conversation because the first person doesn't exactly agree with the second person's statement.

Imagine an attorney asking someone a question in a deposition or a voir dire. The person answering begins with "Well..." A problem has arisen, but the attorney doesn't recognize it. And which of the 4 uses of well did the person answering the attorney have in mind? Is (s)he disagreeing with the attorney, sorting for common ground, trying to fix just the part that is causing some disagreement, or stalling for time to formulate an answer?

That's why language experts need to be in the loop in all sorts of situations. What about the detective interviewing a suspect for a crime? Is the suspect agreeing or disagreeing with the detective? Is the detective trying to lead the suspect to say something that sounds like the truth so that (s)he can proceed with an arrest? What about non-legal arenas such as arbitration or non-court hearings such as the kind that take place in educational systems?

Since virtually all people use language to get what they want or hide the truth or hedge in giving statements or speak partial truths in all kinds of situations, formal and informal alike, then people think they know how to judge the language use of others. They really need someone familiar with the science of langage in the formal situations, and many times in the informal circumstances too. Someday maybe.

A mirror reflection would be nice

I love hearing people well-versed in their fields. The last two days I was able to hear a couple of people who have done original research in their chosen fields. Lovely. They are comfortable in the information they have mulled for a while, and they know how to talk to others about it. The lecture format is not always the best method of delivery, but I am old-world enough that I can still listen and appreciate the format. There's something about experience in a field coupled with familiarity of facts that makes for a stimulating time.

One of the experts focused on teaching that responds to students' whereabouts in a subject area and spoke of types of teaching to use with a variety of student reactions to the different types, like innovation and reflection. The other expert actually said there are no "gifted" students. That was brave considering the conference was one that GT/AP teachers had to come to for renewing their certifications. She spoke of Socratic questioning and student independence from a teacher as well.

Of course, the type of teaching these two scholars spoke of does work with students who are motivated to learn. Power to them. Advocates for the downtrodden always bring up that there are different strokes for those who were not as privileged, those who "struggle." Perhaps the government should relinquish its stand on mandatory education. People in 2100 will more than likely look back at this time in history and refer to it as the time of the failed mass education experiment. The sooner we admit that, the better. 12 years of daycare for children who grow to adolescence without any responsibility should make us think about doing away with their socialized pampering. It probably won't happen because the children who graduate under this system will not have the skills to critically think through whether or not their experience of school actually benefited them.

With all of this system's best efforts, still only 28% of the population at large finish college. Let's look in the mirror on this! The two experts mentioned above talked of methods that work for anyone who is interested in learning. Obviously 72% of the population have other designs for their lives. What about a conference on what 72% of the population might want to better their lives? I don't think Socratic questioning is helping the lady at the salon to win her Golden Scissors award or the realtor to make the million dollar club or the soldier to defend his life in the streets of Baghdad. Of course, these 3 professions have a "company" retrain them in the particular arts and skills they will need in the shop, the residential world, or the streets in which the IED or bullet rules. So what good really did the 12 years of daycare serve?

What a deal. A kid past 14 gets free meals, A/C or heating, and a crowd of people to disappear into. Who wouldn't want this Peter Pan world where no one really ever grows up until that word "graduation" comes around.

I don't mind hearing about how teach students of any age who are engaged in learning to begin with. Bring on more of them. Let's just be honest about the rest of the situation, face up to its failure, and move on toward a new, better-suited situation for our society. The sooner, the better.

Quantifying knowledge accumulation - what a silly, silly notion

What's the deal with people wanting to know how they stack up against others? I'm talking about the intelligence game. Who really cares about an intelligence rating? It seems like another of those prestige games that needy people want play, so they make up this scale of numbers to quantify what they are good at. Of course, the same scale can't apply to any other talent area than the one the needy person is good at because that would ruin the prestigious feeling of the needy person.

Intelligence—bah humbug! There is no such thing. Try defining it. If you can arrive at a definition, try measuring it. If you could somehow quantify it, try replicating the results. Even if you could replicate results in one language group, could you guarantee that humans in different parts of the world would show the same intellegence levels with the same test? Exactly! That's my point.

Intelligence might be the sum total of choice + opportunity, but it is not some nebulous idea that some people's gray matter allows them to be "smarter" than other people's gray matter. Brains weigh the same. They function the same, except in rare cases of defective wiring from birth. They store information in the same way. They follow a general pattern in forming how information is transmitted and used. So, where is there room for competition in saying that somehow intelligence exists?

A little trip through the book, How the Mind Works, of a leading neurolinguist, Steven Pinker, would show how silly the formation of the question, "Is there intelligence?" is. Brains work the same way. There would have to be a fundamental difference in how different the brain works in people who are considered "smart" from those who are not "smart" before there could be a possiblity for intelligence to exist. There is no fundamental difference. Neuropaths form. Synapses form. Dendrites form. Electronic impulses carry the same amount of information in them when they are sparked.

Hopefully, we are past intelligence as a society. People are equal in brain function. It boils down to choices people make about what information they learn, when they learn it, what kind of personality governs which information is learned and how much of it to store. One might want to clear up the influences of personality on learning before taking on the notion that intelligence exists.

A freed person

I recently heard that someone who has known me for 35 years said that she saw how my son's loss has left me broken. Well, there's no doubt that I was stunned, thrown off course, and otherwise disoriented for about a year. But, from that time on, I really think that I have learned to shed the things from the past that don't count for anything and have moved into exciting arenas of life.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm singing a new hallelujah. I have learned what is really important. I have learned where game playing is taking place. I don't have time for game playing anymore. Majoring in majors is the only way to go. Perhaps the comment was made because what this person thinks I should be doing now is what I was doing before my son's loss. That shows a lack of understanding. Staring death in the face is very liberating. I am no longer bound by striving for false values. I don't have time for those. Much of what I was doing before didn't really get me anywhere in life.

Now the blessing is clearer vision. What anyone sees in me now is not a broken person, but a much freer person, I'm glad to report.

Call it connectivity

E-Harmony is onto something. Their whole idea is that two people can come together and stay together because they are compatible. Actually, that's based on some very good research. But what e-harmony is really onto is that two people can share a genetic fabric seamlessly. Allow me to explain.

It's time to go way beyond the adage, "Opposites attract." People are alike in a number of ways even though in some ways they remain different because the genes program the cells differently. What if the genes that produce cells for the body also produce personality. And although we are all alike in that we can more or less get along in the world, we are different in personalities. A number of companies have put out personality tests or predictive indexes, but it's way beyond that. There are probably as many combinations of personality strands as there are genetic trait appearance strands.

What if people's personalities shared traits like people's appearances share traits. For example, people share the traits of hair color,fingernail roundness or ridges, nose pointedness or roundness, size of ears, etc. In other words, we know others, even outside of our families, who share with us certain appearance traits. If personality is genetically produced, it would stand to reason that personality "shapes" would also be shared. But, itstead of saying personality shapes, let's say that personalities have points of connection with others' personalities - not attraction necessarily - connection. Some points of connection might truly be opposites connecting, such as one kind of personality trait in one person appreciating a certain personality trait in another person because they are complementary or supplementary. I would think much more of the time the connection would be derived from having the same personality trait, though. There might even be certain personality traits that are connected because of admiration of one trait for another. So, one would have connecting points of opposites, sameness, admiration, maybe tolerance or blindness to certain other traits, even connection points of pleasantness, one trait feeding another's trait. Attraction would fall under this category, but the category is larger than attraction and subcategories could be exclusive of its fellow subcategories. Call this series of combinations compatibility if they match up perfectly and incompatibility if they are mismatched completely.

Of course, there is no such thing as compatibility or incompatibility. Put another way, there is a low probability that compatible and incompatible, as defined above, would combine perfectly for a match or mismatch. E-harmony has shown that compatibility to a degree can make a difference, however, in the way humans can live together successfully. The good work that e-harmony has accomplished is deceiving though. Since it is successful, people miss the point about compatibility. E-harmony sells its idea in the love arena so that compatibility is seen only as attraction. But two people can be compatible without attraction. We know this is so because of the coined term platonic relationship. Two people can be compatible and attracted to each other. People, for example, refer to spouses or significant others as their best friends besides being their lovers. Two people have also been noticed to have complementary and supplementary connections. Thus, the term soul mate was coined outside the terms for attraction.

But, I'm trying to ask a different question. Can two people share the genetic personality points that connect them to the extent that age boundaries even generational boundaries are crossed? Can two people share so many personality points that familial or romantic connections are superseded? Can two people of different generations, different races, different religious beliefs be connected whether or not they ever meet? And if they meet, would the two notice it immediately? If e-harmony is any indication just in the one arena it caters to, the answer is yes to the above 3 questions. People of different ages are compatible. Regularly, mates meet that are a decade apart in age. On a smaller scale, and probably due to societal taboos or philosophical views, different races are compatible for e-harmony. People of different religious beliefs are compatible we know for sure from the e-harmony experiment.

For sake of illustration, if, out of the thousands of points for possible connections to combine, just 4 areas of combination were perfectly matched, I might start to notice some compatibility. If those 4 areas were identified as opposite (complementary and supplementary), sameness, admiration, and pleasantness, I could notice certain specific manifestations. What if, for example, I met someone with the moniker, number girl, knowing that my moniker is wordman? I would immediately notice a complementary opposite. What if that same person shared the same humor as mine? What if the same someone possessed a trait I admired, such as the ability to mix well with people and accept people for who they are? What if this person's trademark laugh was an area of pleasantness my own personality craved? And what if there were a thousand other points of connection in a number of other areas? We would be compatible, then, whatever the beliefs, race, or age happened to be. And the more connecting points, the more compatibility.
Some would say the two share souls. That's an easily misunderstood metaphor, though. What they share are seamless points of connection in a genetic fabric of compatibility, not e-harmony style, but total harmony style.

Now how do you spell d-i-g-i-t-a-l?

The rocks of the earth tell us much about the earth if we want to listen. Many people don't believe in radio carbon testing for time and ages. But, even if a person doesn't, one still has to somehow account for bones that no person has written about, assumedly not having been seen during recorded history. One must account for the way the scars on the earth's surface appear that tell a story that predates human settlement. The Grand Canyon, the huge lake basin (now dry) in California, the location of mountain ranges all the way from Chile to Alaska that appear mainly on the western portion of the north and south American continents. And then there is the story of the KT boundary.

The Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) boundary is a layer of earth, not too thick, that can be found no matter where one digs. It is significant because certain life forms didn't make it from the layer of rocks found below the boundary to the layer of rocks found above the boundary. Dinosaurs are the most significant life form that failed to make it past the KT boundary. Theories abound on their extinction, but they definitely didn't survive the KT boundary event. Not many argue the origin of the KT boundary since it contains material that comes from space outside the earth's atmosphere. Something huge hit the earth from space and life that existed up to that time didn't make the fossil record after that time.

I would like to sound the death knell for two very significant processes that we now use all the time—reading and writing. A KT boundary event is about to happen to these two processes. It has everything to do with advancing to the next level of civilization. In the next phase, there is no place for either process because they are too slow and take too much processing time. Note the book iBrain by Gary Small and many others like it. Note that it was predicted in 1991 by Jane Healy in Endangered Minds. Public schools will die. They will not make it past the KT boundary of digitized information. They exist to perpetuate old habits. Their fossil remains will be found when holographic imagery becomes commonplace in about 10-15 years. Business will not put up with so many young people coming from schools who can't compete in the global economy. They will take over the schools and form a KT boundary. Communication and presentation of ideas will be the rule of the day that can be communicated and presented fairly instantaneously. What a person can measure in numbers and see with their eyes or spectrometers will be the skills needed.

Already liberal education is not nearly as important as it once was. Success comes to many who know the digital language rather than the printed text. Digital language comes in numbers, pictures, videos, symbols, color codes, waves. Printed text is dying already and the digital revolution is barely underway. Teachers and students alike have very little time to adapt. A significant event has happened that so many educators never recognized. Goodbye—you are the weakest link. Your fossils will litter the countryside on the other side of the digital boundary. You saw the bright light in the sky, heard the rumble, felt the quake under your feet, and died from the radiation, disease, or famine caused by the stellar event.

The good news is that life did make it past the KT boundary. It was life of a different kind. But society is sure more advanced now than when the dinosaurs reigned. So be it.

Fragility doesn't fit

Life is fragile. Anyone can point that out. Without heart medicine, some people wouldn't live very much longer. The same could be said about those who take blood pressure medicine. Those who have cancer and are taking chemo know so well about fragility. Step on a plane and land in the Hudson River, and then you call it a miracle if you live. Much more could be said.

Apply this saying (Life is fragile) to spirituality and the examples fail to come so fast. The One who said, "I am life" didn't mean that he was fragile or that following his teachings would make fragile followers. It's a non sequitur to say that spiritual life is fragile. "I am life" implies that something is robust and full of satisfaction.

Not everything that applies to the physical world can be transferred to the spiritual dimension. Hopefully people aren't careless like that.

Qs about life

I think this year I would like to blog about the idea of life. Last year I studied and blogged about drinking water that knocks out thirst and learned a lot. This year I think I will see what the expressions of the Teacher are about life. I know where to find them and have covered them before, but studying with an aim in mind sometimes uncovers some nuggets of refreshment for the soul.

I don't know the best place to start, so I'll just start in the middle of things when Jesus said that he was the the way, truth, and life. He said it in first person, of course, "I am life." I don't think it is worth quibbling about the presence or absence of the article in front of life. Jesus = life is the basic equation either way. So, I'll just explore a little about the basic equation.

Sometimes it is implied and sometimes it isn't. Jesus is talking about the afterlife, a spiritual life that people can't see, or the apparent lifestyle a person lives. Those choices might be overlapping easily enough, or they could all be separate threads of thought. I'll just have to take time and explore. It will give me something to think about this year.

Toll, please

I shed tears these days a little more often than I did when I was a young man. Perhaps that means I am more sensitive about the human condition. I hope so. I find that I don't watch nearly as many scenes from movies or TV that offend this newly found sensitivity. I think the tears also come because I understand more of what is involved when things go awry.

The other night in bed, after lights were completely out, I was listening to one of the most beautiful songs of the Christmas season pulsing out the fact that God expressed good will to people. I'd heard those words before, of course, even though the song was new. This time, though, I understood the human side of the matter. Humans don't want good will toward God or fellow human beings. It was really sad. In the particular mindset I had that night I could see the ill will humans have in the arena of betrayal. The Maker, I know, experiences it everyday, as do many humans. But, it touched me that night. Tears were shed. I saw betrayal among humans. I couldn't quite hold back the tears for the toll it takes on a life.

Whomever, whoever, whatever

Many views we take are a matter of interpretation. The lady on the news tonight said that some benefactor was giving away something "to whomever wishes to take it." Well, normally, "whomever" is the grammatically correct choice. It's objective case all right. It follows a preposition all right. But, "whomever" does not appear alone. It's in a clause. Now, another rule could come into play. Select "whoever," the subject case pronoun when the indefinite relative pronoun is the subject of its own clause. Now, there is room for interpretation. Should one use subject case to follow the rules of choice for clauses or the object case pronoun to follow the case rules for words that follow a preposition? The news anchor made a choice. I would have chosen the other rule. Who's right?

I find this to be true in other areas besides grammar. It happens in socialization of speech, in acceptable rules governing cultural habits, in religion, and elsewhere. We all make choices that others would not choose, and sometimes, in fact, choose the direct opposite option. I visited a restaurant not long ago with a friend. Before we received our meal a family was seated next to us with very small children. My friend thought that it was so impolite of the people to come to a restaurant in the first place with children who would have to be corrected in public and force others outside their family to have to put up with such obnoxious behavior. He even went so far as to make comments loud enough for the couple to hear so that they would know his interpretation of correct public behavior. I also know another person who will ask to be moved if small children are seated near her.

Somehow, we all get along with each other in the end or there would be mass killings. Of course, we all have preferences and don't want those violated with any degree of frequency. One of the most beautiful songs I heard at the close of the year 2008 was a song by Casting Crowns called "I can hear the Christmas bells ringing." It was about the announcement from angels to humans, "Peace on earth, good will to its people." But, it also talked about how people really hate each other and peace on earth can never be achieved.

Should I care that the news anchor used "whomever" when I can think of a rule of equal weight that would select "whoever?" Should I care if a family with small children get seated next to me in a restaurant? Should I opt for peace when it can never really be achieved? I don't know. I learned a long time ago that you can't change the stripes on a zebra. People are who they are. Mostly, rules are relative. But, it sure is hard for people to realize the relativity or arbitrariness of their views and beliefs.

Counter-intuition has made me rich

At the beginning of 2008, John 4.13-14 was a passage that I thought would be worth exploring and applying at a deeper level than I had studied it before. It was a trip worth exploring. Several blogs during the year were dedicated to it. I am sure that there are still a couple of rocks left to turn, but the rocks turned over for me gave me a new impetus for exploring the Master's other teachings. As I let this passage go and assume another to study, I have to notice the context for the water that does not leave you to thirst again. Just after the water remarks, Jesus referred to never worshiping God in either the Samaritan mountain of the woman at the well or in Jerusalem. He went on to talk to his 12 closest followers, mentioning that he had noursihment from food they knew nothing about and that they should look to harvest all the time not just in harvesting season. I would love to have seen John when he wrote of these opposites or contrasts to common knowledge. The content was counter-intuitive. It defied wisdom of the day. It gave credence to spiritual applications even though the physical applications did not lead to understanding the spiritual.

Although many Jews understood Jesus as a rabbi with more wisdom than the average bear, Jesus' teachings also entered a realm of their own. They smacked of something other-worldly, not just good, sound, earthly wisdom. Drinking water that would quench one's thirst forever was not good, sound, earthly wisdom. Drinking water that would lead to the next life was not good, sound, earthly wisdom to many of the Jews, especially the Pharisees, although the Sadducees would understand the concept. Water that would quench the search for the eternal was a metaphor and a spiritual insight. It turned the physically bound Jewish beliefs on their head. For that I am thankful as 2008 closes out. I fully participate in the metaphor and fully accept the spiritual insight. It has made me a richer person to be around.

No thirst

The night came and went without notice or event. The main event had already happened in all its austere, harsh cruelty. The night didn't offer relief. It just came. It was symbolic of the main event - the time of day when nothing good happens.

It is at the end of something straining that the body craves water. It needs the liquid of rejuvenation. So does the soul after an event that drains the source of its energy and reason for being. But, after this main event there was no more energy, only a wellspring of reliance that the big picture was in the hands of someone who might know what he is doing. Fireworks didn't go off. Pictures of water on the wall were not there to look at. No arguments happened. No big scene with someone shaking a fist at the sky in rage. There was just that empty pit in the stomach that "knew" no answer on earth would suffice, but that the picture of the main event somehow rested in a bigger picture, the pattern of which I was not privileged to see.

The Master's words about water that is a wellspring from within a person that leads to a life that does not end is true. I'm a little different in the way I want to arrange my values, but the wellspring was there, still is there.

A very familiar path and place

At the beginning of this year, I had determined to explore the meaning of one of the Master's teachings about drinking water from him and never being thirsty again. I found that I understood the teaching better as time went by during the year. There is something about mulling over an idea over time that lends itself to fuller understanding of the idea. I feel that I was much calmer this year. Partly that is due to normal maturation, partly due to just focusing once in a while on going deeper with a concept. But, I think mainly it is due to the understanding that the Master's water is a continuous well spring after all. In every situation the water is there to drink. The drinking is an event that people see. The result of the drinking is that my reactions to the event are consistent with what I think are indicative of the next life.

Shortly after the Master talked with the woman at the well to tell her about drinking water that is inside of her, he tells one of his followers that he knows the path the Master is on and the place to which the Master is headed. To me, the reference is to the well spring within us – we know the path and the place after this life. Those two ideas keep us going.

We do this psychologically in our everyday lives. I have gone to work thinking, after I have reached the work place, that I didn't remember passing any of the lights or making any of the turns to get to the work place. The way is so familiar, I can drive without even noticing it any longer. Having a well spring of the Master's water has the same effect on us. The road home is so familiar that we don't even notice the turns anymore even though we are on the road. We are creatures of habit, thankfully. That keeps us drinking the right water and driving down the familiar road. That's a comfort.

Will away the quirks

One of the nicest people I know tries so hard to walk according to his faith. He comes to see me on a regular basis. We used to work together. He has since retired, but my son's predicament touched his heart. He comes about 3 times a year just to check that I'm all right.

Another of the nicest people I know works in the same building I do, just a few offices away. I don't see her on a daily basis, but she always has a cheerful greeting when we do see each other. She doesn't hesitate to try to encourage me with a story from around the world of some Christian happening or another.

One of my very nice friends calls to eat or visit sporadically through the year. He' always seeking to find God's heart on matters. He's such a philosophical guy. We'll go out to eat, and two hours will have passed without notice. He's just so interesting to talk to.

Another of my very nice friends calls every so often just to say something nice that he remembered from a previous conversation or from a vibe that he had that something might have been tough. He is so grounded in the Christian faith that caring about others is so natural to him.

These are some of the nicest people I know. I could actually have different memories of them. Each one of them has "quirks." That just means they conduct their lives just a little differently than I do. I could focus on the fact that one of them is manic depressive and considers himself to have a drinking problem, or that one of them shuts himself off from the world and has a hard time making himself be around people and takes anti-depression medicine just to get out, or that one of them is oblivious to times and schedules, so shows up to work or comes back from breaks according to when she is ready rather than looking at a clock. Oh, there is a considerable quirk list I could draw up. But, why would I do that? These are the nicest people I know.

When I walk in the park in the silence of the dark, cold mornings sometimes, I think of what others think and say about my life. I wonder if I am one of the nicest people they know or if I am one of the quirkiest people they know. I have plenty of quirks that rub people the wrong way. I only hope that people will remember the part of me that helps them in their faith walk. The rest of it isn't worth anything to them and they need to drop it out of their minds. It only works for me and is not help for them. In fact, I want them to drop any memory of me that does't light up their face or their soul.

I choose to remember the nicest people I know for how they help me stay on the path that leads me home. And, I hope on someone else's list out there, my name is on some kind of similar list for them. I could be a repeater on a number of people's quirk list. I hope they see past that, though.

Science WITH faith

In the early 1500s, Copernicus theorized that the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth. The theory caught the attention of very few and was repressed by the Catholic church at the time. However, other astronomers and mathmeticians did notice. About 80 years later, Galileo assumed the theory as fact and was able to make precise calculations of the universe by making the assumption. Galileo also built on the knowledge by improving the telescope and finding phases of Venus and moons around Jupiter. The Catholic church placed Galileo under house arrest for the last four years of his life and asked him to recant the theory that the sun was the center of the universe, which he did under that pressure.

In a more modern century and in another field, Wegener in 1912, theorized that the continents on the earth drift about on the earth's surface. In 1928, the call was taken up by Holmes with the addition that volacanic activity below the ocean's surface somehow made the drift possible. With the subsurface oceanic studies in the 1960s, the theory was corroborated and strengthened. Now geologists assume plate tectonics as fact. This time the Catholic church could not stand in the way of deterring the progress of scientific findings. It's influence had waned. But churches both protestant and catholic can be found that still oppose "secular" science and feel that the Bible is in opposition to findings from science, any field.

As the scientific revolution marches on, there will be other great discoveries that will advance the knowledge of the human race. And, probably there will still be resistance from religious voices or entities saying that science in some way destroys the faith engendered by the events in the Bible.

I would hope that just the opposite happens. My hope is that people will begin to see the advancement of humanity by the good that science brings us. Stem cell exploration has the potential to help a great number of diseases. Moon exploration has the potential to bring us Helium 3 and other non-earth elements. Space travel in general would do the same. Food from algae and other underwater resources could virtually wipe out hunger, while taming the ocean's movements and desalinizing the ocean could ensure a never-ending supply of comfort and supply of drinkable water.

My hope is that people will begin to see that matters of faith are not found in science but in beliefs about matters not seen, about a person who was raised from the dead. Science can help the physical stay on the earth. Faith can help the spiritual stay on the earth. It takes both. The two are not in opposition. They're complements of each other. When seen as two faces of the same existence, the earth can advance and peace on earth can be achieved.

I need an eraser

Today wasn't so cold – outside. Inside my mind, it was in the 40s – chilly. My mind seemed unsettled. Not about anything in particular, just unsettled.

I had to read a research report by the United States Department of Education. On the surface it seemed that the report was giving contradictory results. That's a little unsettling. The report was saying that there was no impact after three years and 3 billion dollars on reading comprehension in Reading First schools. 3 billion dollars for nothing is a bit unsettling. It wasn't my money, but still. It was just another of those government ideas that something would work – Ha! it didn't.

Also, by virtue of the fact that I was reading the report for a meeting that is not in my area is another reason for the unsettled mind. One of the supervisors for that area could easily think I was putting my mind in her business, a place it didn't belong. She just spent a quarter of a million dollars for a reading academy by the very people who were the subject of the report. Their methods didn't work. She might not be willing to see it that way considering she spent a good bit of time and money in these methods.

And then there is the funeral I went to today. Funerals are usually a bit unsettling. They bring back memories that leave me absolutely speechless, silent because I have still not made 100% sense out of losing my own son to this world.

The list goes on throughout the day of the unsettling events. But I'll sleep tonight. It's usually good to do so because it erases the way the events of the day have arranged themselves and begins a new arrangement on the following day. Tomorrow will bring a new turn of events, and I'm glad for that.

Slaking one's thirst

13Jesus answered, "Those who drink this water will get thirsty again, 14but those who drink the water that I will give them will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give them will become in them a spring which will provide them with life-giving water and give them eternal life." (John 4)

In this case it's important to know what the symbol for water is. It will be a spring within us so that we would never be thirsty. Understanding Jesus makes us never feel that something is missing. Understanding Jesus gives us a handle to live here temporarily. Christians are satiated people who confidently move through the timeline to something after the timeline ends. Satiation here and life after here are what the drinkers of Jesus' water get from him. It's the complete package - nothing is missing.

Magnanimosity

I received an email two days ago about something Eisenhower did. The email was in direct response to what the president of Iran had said about the Holocaust never happening. Someone had carefully put together a series of pictures of Jewish death camps under Hitler. The power point slides one after the other showed the horror of all the gased or dead bodies in the different camps across Germany. The slide show began with Eisenhower authorizing all those pictures to be taken because he feared that someone in the future would say that the Holocaust never happened. He wanted to leave to posterity the visual proof that a horror of that magnitude did exist.

I remember 2000 years ago the Son of God coming to the grave of a man who had been dead 4 days. The whole point of the episode was in the Son's prayer saying that he knew that the people needed to see the dead rise so that they could believe that he was the Son of God. Although the story takes up only a little space, a visual was left for succeeding generations. If that happened in modern times one would think that something of that magnitude would have received an immense amount of attention and lasted for generations to come. But if a person can say some magic words to erase the Holocaust, then I don't know.

Even in our own short lives, we tend to forget some pretty important details of how we were helped from time to time in our lives. If we need to look around our lives for an example of some supernatural intervention, and we can't seem to latch on to that visual, actually that experienced event, then I don't know.

If you ask someone over 40 to identify some of those times in their lives when something of great magnitude happened, and you get the response that they can't really think of anything, then I don't know.

Life is a bit slippery sometimes. But, to forget the details that gut an experience of its magnitude is a terrible capacity to have. That capacity can relegate anything to oblivion. Heaven forbid!

Life after 50 is called the "Golden Years" because the ability to learn from life's visuals and actual experiences replaces repeating the same mistakes. Replacing the crusty mud of bad judgment with the gold of learning to do better is a 50-year experience and more. That's why I know there was a holocaust and believe that a dead man did come to life once because the Son of God said, "Come forth!" Those are events of magnitude. The Golden Years teach us to believe rather than dismiss things of magnitude.

Families and scatter plots

I've been trying to get a handle on how families interact with each other for a while now. I have very often wondered how someone like Dobson could gather data on what "strong" families do. I'm still looking for the "strong" family.

It seems there is a general principle in life that says that the longer something stays on the earth, the more it weakens or unravels. As I observe all kinds of families I would say that I could chart the characteristics, all right, but that those charactersitics would be plotted on a scatter graph, not in a closed set called "strong." The families I see in my world are all so very different, even the ones who share common beliefs. I see people in a church for instance, who have great individual faith, but have few common interests with their spouses. I see people at work who believe in spending time developing the ideals of the "company" but who never mention their spouses at work, or they mention them in negative contexts. I see pillars of the community who spend a waking hour, maybe 2, at home with their families during the week. I see religious teachers who go to a meal out with their families and say about 50 words the whole time they are in the restaurant.

Then I look at the families in which the parents' children are old enough to have their own young children and who have their own adult lives going on. Where are the joyful times with grandchildren? I see few of them. Where are the visits when fathers and sons-in-law sit and talk about life in general or interests they have whether or not the interests are in common? When are the visits taking place between mothers and daughters-in-law that create the familial bonds? Where are the grandchildren who see their grandparents willingly? I'm thinking life has a way of unraveling.

A coworker of mine recently had several calls from her family on a given day at the end of which (and repeated a week later) the statement was made, "I've had it with my dysfunctional family!" Of course, that's why we all have an empty spot to fill with the Great Teacher's values, one of which is the need to be rescued from the general principles of life. But at least I know better than to look around for families that have "strong" characteristics. I just know how to interact within the family bonds I was born into and within the family bonds I established or that were born to me and invite the Good Master in for the rescue if life goes long enough for the family bonds to unravel.

When the season calls for it

A creek rippled by at the foot of 30' drop from the balcony of the cabin I stayed in. You could hear it in the quiet moments of the day and during the night. Not far from the cabin a dry tributary joined with the creek. It was about 15' across where it connected. It looked inviting, so I decided to take a walk up the dry creek bed to see where it would lead. The bed wandered uphill in a winding fashion, but it was fairly flat so walking was easy. The tributary narrowed the farther uphill I walked. About 100 yards up, the bed was only a small jump across. It suddenly bent almost 90 degrees and went curvingly up the side of mountain. It was dry there too all the way till it vanished out of sight. The width up the mountain could not have been more than 2' across.

I stopped to muse what the vision might mean. It was just a dry creek bed, but I could not help but think that the scene had a deeper meaning for me. I stared back down the mountain at the path I had taken to come uphill this far trying to see a message, but to no avail. I retraced my steps continuing in thought. Thoughts began trickling into my conscious awareness, "Tributaries bring reinforcement water to the stream below it. Tributaries help drain the mountain of unnecessary water. Tributaries are seasonal, swelling for use when they are needed."

It was this last point that my mind stuck on. There was my message. I don't know that my life is as dry as the stream bed, but the scene begged for the meaning of the tributary's seasonal nature. Finally, the thought formed. In due time, when the season calls for it, once again you will be able to offer something of value to the greater whole or to someone who needs it.

My message was clear. I could leave the scene behind. I had a tip for living from nature itself for which I was thankful.

A definite occasion for mouthwash

I suppose I have some opinions of what should happen in a class whether it be an English class, a linguistics class, a foreign language class, or a Bible class. Here's the list: start with a premise or principle, capsule the direction of the next # of minutes, put in place the ideas that form the direction, back up the ideas with experience or research or facts, elaborate on the ideas with stories (anecdotal data) or experimental data to match. If conjecture is made, then know where the areas of the conjecture are weak and allow for some debate since the conjecture is not completely fleshed out.

A month ago I was invited to go to a class because "it allowed for discussion, and it contained ideas that were not orthodox." The person who invited me is a good friend and really believed I would enjoy it. So, I went. Nearly everything that happened in the class did not fit the list created above. Naturally, I felt that it had been a waste of time. But out of deference to my friend, I went a second time. This time it was worse.

Anyone can moderate a class if all the person does is spew one notion after another. We all have notions, sometimes well founded, sometimes ill founded. Name a subject, people have opinions or notions. But, if I go to a "class," I have this expectation that it should be for learning, not for listening to someone spew notions. I won't go back. This class is not for learning. As good a listener as I want to be for others, the circumstance for my listening is not going to be in a "class" in which learning should take place.

I realize that others have different ideas of what a "class" should entail. So, I will let the experience of the last couple of classes fall under that category - a difference in definition of terms. The "teacher's" definition for a "class" was just different from mine. His list of characteristics would not match the list I gave in the first paragraph at all. I'll just chalk it up to a misjudgment on my part for choosing to attend. But it sure leaves a bad taste in the mouth. That's what mouthwash is for.

Not enough tears

I heard a speaker recently speak on a subject that was painful to listen to. He spoke eloquently of this subject, so eloquently that many cried in the audience. But, the points he was trying to make caused many to go to the emotional core of their being to hear of the injustice being perpetrated by one person on another. It was P-A-I-N-F-U-L to hear. People filled with selfish interests abusing others or betraying trusts with others.

Then I thought of all the behaviors in life that cause pain. Children who ignore their parents' careful upbringing turning to lifestyles that lead them astray and into places of correction to their behavior cause endless streams of tears and grief. Spouses who call their mates and declare that love is over, nevermind that 4 children will be affected, stun the listening mate at first, but very soon tears follow by the gallon. Grandparents adopt grandchildren because their own children bottom out under the strain of society and are washed away to sea, and the grand parents will be 78 when the youngest grandchild graduates from high school.

Sadness, badness, cruelty and injustice everywhere. I say EVERYWHERE - every corner of the world. Tears are falling every moment of the day and night. One would think, judging from the sheer amount of pain inflicted by one person on another, that tears would run dry. They don't. And, when I think of the sadness and pain, I think more people should cry. There are enough tears being shed in one sense because people weep as a result of their pain. But, in a sense, not enough people cry.

Why are we such a cruel lot, we humans? WAKE UP PEOPLE! Cry for somebody. And then, act loudly against all that person's cruelty and injustice. One person at a time. One tear at a time.

A drain or necessary step?

Group dynamics are interesting to say the least. This morning a person was adamant about diagreeing with someone in a setting of about 15 people. The leader of the group was very polite to the person who voiced disagreement. We had to spend about 10 minutes of time trying to find ground on which some agreement could be found. It didn't happen, so it was a waste of 10 minutes. The group leader, as a consequence, didn't get to end at a place he wanted to. The people in the class could feel the crunch of time, so they didn't discuss as much.

One perspective is that one person decided he would rob everyone of a needed 10 minutes. Another, kinder perspective is that the person needed to be able to say something so that he could benefit from the rest of the group's time together. Groups are always energy-sucking events. It sometimes makes one wonder if the energy drain is worth it. In a country in which individual freedom is valued, I guess position-taking is a ritual that doesn't have so many ethical rules governing it.

Patchwork strangeness

In studying the ideas about the Son of Man, I have run across some very interesting material. It's found in the pseudipigraphical books of the Old Testament. Some call this period of time the intertestamental period. There seems to have been an evolution for the Son of Man.

In Ezekiel, for example, the son of man refers to humans. In Daniel, the son of man seems to be a heavenly creature. That image appears to be the same in 1 Enoch as well a 2 Esdras. When Jesus uses the term, he uses it to refer to himself. If not, then he is referring to some other being to follow him, even another messiah. Most people interpret Jesus' words to mean that he is referring to himself.

Then, there is the use in Revelation. One would think that John, who is a believer and follower of Jesus, would take the term to mean Jesus. Instead, it seems to follow the Daniel, 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras usage. Now that's passing strange. Unless, of course, the apostle John did not write the Revelation, which I tend to be leaning toward the more I read the book.

A pixel in the big picture

The Great Teacher said we shouldn't worry about what may happen tomorrow. Each day has its own set of problems. We can't add an inch to the height we are given in life. Our father clothes the birds and flowers in more splendor than King Solomon could clothe himself with all his riches, so we shouldn't be asking what we are going to eat, drink , and wear.

OK. Well and good. I guess I need to gauge my trust level here. It might not register so high. But, this year will definitely put this frame of sayings to the test. In a way I do worry about how the place that I work during the day will consider the kind of work I do after-hours. One could construe them to be in conflict with each other. I prefer to consider the after-hours work as an investment in future return rather than a conflict of interest. It's all in perception. I think this will come to a head on September 26th. That's when the intersection of the two work places will occur. Do I worry about it? According to the above, the Maker of situations can work out people's perceptions as well as feeding birds and clothing flowers. I just need to approach the date in September with an understanding that the big picture can easily be handled if I merely trust that it will be.

Ying and Yang

Sometimes I look at the mountains and see sheer, unadulterated beauty and truth. At other times I see the result of the collision of earth's plates causing one plate to pleat, the other to be lost beneath the earth. I guess that represents the two sides of me. One side very analytical, rather detached, objective.

The other side realizes what is breath-taking, splendid, ethereal.

One side doesn't rob the other side. If anything, one side enhances the other. That should be true of all humans - having two sides. Spending time with someone else helps us not just to notice the two sides of an individual, but to see how the two sides enhance a fuller character.

Musing about what I don't know anything about

Last night I was putting together a module for a class and had to deal with the Sumerian culture. Anytime I deal with a culture before the scientific revolution, I am taken aback by the sheer amount of ignorance that was in the people's lives and how much of their belief in the unknown was notional and fabricated. Of course, they didn't know better.

I know that someday, the people of another future time will look on us the same way. What we call science today will be taken for granted as known fact for centuries and as commonly known as our knowledge about the sun around which we rotate. They will look at us and wonder how we existed in such ignorance.

Yesterday I was studying a part of the New Testament that few people read anymore. I was struck by its coherence and parallelism, but I also knew that many just dip in and read a stretch of verses once in a while and miss the coherence and parallelism. Yet, they persist in some belief that the stretch of verses "taught" them even though the larger context and historical context might lead to a different understanding.

All of the above makes me know that the amount of knowledge I may have is small, temporary, and foundational for people living in some future society. That leads me away from feeling smug. It leads me right into feeling humble, sometimes insignificant. It makes me want to live forever so that I can keep up with the knowledge curve, keep up with the leading edge of discovery.

But, I know that I will not live forever in the environment I want to stay in. But, that does show my ignorance. I will live forever in an environment I have no knowledge of, but trust that it is so much different, so much more splendid, so much more filled with knowledge that I might as well die now because it may be another 5000 years before people on earth attain to the knowledge of an inkling available in the eternal world. I think I just talked myself out of staying around here forever.

Battles are fought ahead of the field of battle

It's nice to look up and see friends all around. Often the journey in life is rough or lifeless. It's those echoes of friendliness that rocket out of the darkness when life does get rough or lifeless that make one know that Someone Else knew the you needed the smile, the prayer, the call, the note, the ironic play of events.

Tonight I just need to recognize that the Creator can come from deep in the cosmos to my little life with just the right sequence of friends' encouragement to carry on. When's the last time someone who hasn't called in 6 months rings your number just to say hi. When's the last time a meal with someone you haven't seen in about a year wants to pray blessings over you after dinner. When's the last time you were driving down the road and an out-of-town friend calls out of the blue and is traveling the opposite direction just 15 minutes away. So, you stop on the road and visit. All that happened in a span of 24 hours.

But, the Maker of coincidences knew that needed to happen because just a short 72 hours later the dark clouds gathered to rain. But, the rain didn't drown you or make you lose your way because you had had friends that lifted your spirits so serendipitously just hours before.

The beast with the number 666 can't paint the picture bad enough when the One who arrays himself against the number, who also wears a victor's crown, has already bolstered your spirits 3 1/2 days ahead of time.

A bit of a sad scene

Last week I was in an upscale restaurant in a city of at least 300,000. I was eating alone because I was traveling, but I decided to notice the groups around me and their interaction. I was in the restaurant about an hour, so I go to see most of the conversations of the people around me. Directly in front of me was a table of 4 young women who appeared to be from a nearby university. One table over to my right was a couple in their mid-30s I would say. Close to them was another couple probably in their 50s. Behind them was a table of 3 couples. To my left was a table of two men sitting across from each other. Behind them was a table of 4 women. And near to them was another couple. I switched on my observation mode.

The three young university women talked without interruption the whole time I was there as did the two men who were engaged in lively conversation between friends. The table of 3 couples had at least one conversation going, sometimes two at all times. The table of 4 women didn't seem to have any pauses in their conversations either. Well, you noticed. What about the tables of the couples. They were pretty quiet tables. Conversation was intermittent, even sporadic at the 50s couple table. They found it hard, it seemed, to keep conversation sustained. The couple closest to the two men seemed to have the least trouble. But, their tones and gestures seemed serious most of the time.

This illustration bears out another point of opposites in cross-gender conversation. When men talk, they seem to talk of events surrounding them in the outside world. The topic of weather in many men's conversations is a point in case. They talk about their relation to their work or career, their ambitions, their analysis of politics or religion or any other issue that is common between the participants. Women, on the other hand, seem to talk about lives of the people around them. What happens in an event takes second place to how something happens or the after-effect of an event on people's lives. What people say and feel about something is important. With men, what people do is important. It bears analysis. Some people say the difference in conversational topics revolves around the internal, the personal, the notional for women, while for men, conversational topics revolve around the external, the competitive, the analytical.

Now back to the tables around me in the restaurant. The all-men, all-women tables had no trouble talking because they are all operating from the same norms. The multiple couples table had no trouble because the couples could splinter at any time between men and women to 3 men and 3 women if the topic selected was of lesser interest to one of the groups. But, the couples tables had trouble. The topic brought up by the men bore the stamp of male conversational rules: the external, the analytical, which is of less interest to the woman who brought topics of things personal, internally connected to people in the topics. Partners appeared bored out their skulls when the other was talking. Couples left in silence. Mixed or same-sex groups left chattering away.

I was a bit saddened by the scene. Are people not willing to notice others' norms and make that adaptation? It's enough to make a person regurgitate.

Scrambled intetentions

A second difference in the codes of gender speaking is that when men speak, they expect to have the floor. Thus, if a man begins to speak and someone else talks over him and prevails, he loses face among the participants in the conversation. If a man interrupts another man, he had better become the speaker to hold the floor, or again, he loses face. So, usually men are quiet unless it is clearly his turn to speak or unless he knows he can wrest the floor and win it.

Women have a totally different norm going on. Because of the minimal response, women feel as if they can speak simultaneously with other women. It is a way of aligning themselves so as to not to be overtly hostile. In fact, women who do not engage in the minimal response are perceived as hostile or antagonistic. So, it is important to align themselves with the speaker. If for some reason, a woman is silent during another speaker's turn, she shows her alignment by building on the last woman's utterance. She might begin her turn by saying, "To add to ____'s idea," ....

So, woman talks to man. He listens like he is supposed to. No minimal response. When he speaks, he takes the floor. In the woman's view, there is no alignment taking place. That means hostility or antagonism. Now, whatever gets said is perceived as a remark that in unaligned with the woman's utterance. The woman may try to respond minimally while the man is talking. He sees the gesture as a woman trying to interrupt, to take the floor from him. According to his rules, that is losing face. According to a woman's rules it is showing alignment. The conversation turns for the worse.

One can better determine how cross-gender conversations become scrambled in a hurry. The codes, norms, or rules are different, even opposite. So the participants in the conversation don't get caught up in the content of the conversation, but let the unspoken rules dictate the underlying meaning of the conversation. That's when the automatic rules learned in our peer groups take over. But, the rules are different and misunderstandings run rampant. That's when the "You said this, but meant that," conversation takes over. Ah, the end is near.

Norms, codes, and discontent

Turn-taking is one of those rules that differs in interpretation by the gender you are. "Rules" are really the norms established by socialization with your peers. So, when learning conversational norms, socialization happens. When people violate established societal norms for conversation, then stigmas are assigned to that person, such as "Oh no, here comes the guy that never shuts up," or "you don't want to talk with him - he never says more than two words." Somewhere in the middle is the norm. We all learn the norm when we socialize through the years. This also means that the peer group teaches us the norm, not the adult population. If you're a deep adult, you have probably noticed that the norms are slightly different for you than they are for people 20 or more years younger than you.

Since socialization occurs from peers, then another observation needs to be made. Girls are socialized by girls, boys by boys. As young people approach puberty, socialization takes on greater importance. One reason is that young people begin striving for independence from parents, even in the way they talk. However, boys hang around boys and girls around girls until mid-to-late adolescence. The socialization process, then, is left to the same sex peer group.

Therein lies the rub. The norms, or rules, for girls differ from the norms for boys. These norms are not easily shaken and continue into adulthood. These norms actually reach codified status for many adults because norms from childhood tend to become codes in nearly all areas of life, like religious values or beliefs, work ethic, role-orientation of culture. So, when a boy meets a girl or a girl meets a boy, the norms for engaging in conversation are different.

Building off of the previous blog, a great illustration can be seen. Turn-taking among girls requires that another girl show her interest in the conversation by giving minimal responses as the conversation continues. Words such as uh-huh, yes, right are sprinkled throughout the turn of the speaker by the listener. Boys, on the other hand, say nothing while another speaker has the floor because one of the norms in boys' conversations is not to take the floor away from the speaker. The minimal response is considered an attempt to take the floor away since it is a way to agree with someone and to then continue building on the conversation. Imagine what happens when boy meets girl. Girls would come away from the conversation saying, "he's not a good conversatinalist because he just sits there." Boys would come away from the conversation saying, "I hate talking with her because she interrupts all the time." This continues into adulthood. Women say, "He just sits there. It's like talking to a brick wall." Men say, "Talking with her is useless. She won't listen and tries to take the floor constantly." Different norms have been mentioned even as a cause for divorce by some.

Norms become codes. Codes become expectations. Expectations breed discontent. Discontent leads to separation or warfare. Thus we have language as a part of the greater "Gender Wars." One would think that understanding the other gender's point of view would uncomplicate matters. But the truth is stated in the first 4 sentences of this paragraph for most, so understanding gets nowhere. I'll write more on this matter in three blogs from this one.

Rules for (word) engagement

Turn-taking is one of the rules of conversation. When a conversation is a purely friendly, casual conversation. The turn-taking is fairly equal in two areas: number of turns for each conversant and number of words by each conversant. What happens when the balance is broken? If one conversant asks for something to be elaborated, then the conversation is still a friendly one, but even the elaboration would have its limits in number of words. Then the conversation returns to the balance it had before the elaboration happened. If one person is taking a dominant position in either the number of turns or the number of words, then the conversation is not friendly any longer. The person on the short end of the stick has tuned out. Interest lags, and if a convenient way of escape lies at hand, the person takes the way of escape. If not, then the person "appears" to listen, but in reality the mind's wheels are turning to get out of the conversation.

Once in a while, one comes across another who is asocialized in turn-taking. The asocialized person misses all the cues of the other conversant tuning out and really has no concept of the "rules" of turn-taking. Asocialized people are avoided like the plague. Word gets around about them. Causes for asocialization in conversation abound, but the next time you get stuck talking with such an asocialized person, just interrupt (you don't have to worry about being rude. They're asocialized remember. They wouldn't recognize rude if it bit them.) and make the way of escape for yourself. Don't wait for the person to draw breath. It is not going to happen.

I hear that women sometimes say that talking to a mate is like talking to a brick wall. That's another subject altogether. Men and women have different rules to converse by and cross-gender speech is a special field (ignored largely by psychologists). When you add intimacy to the cross-gender equation for happy talking, then it's like Einstein's theories of relativity. There's the general theory of relativity, then there's the special theory of relativity. That's a whole blog by itself. Which might be next if I can find the time.

Looking through layers in time

There is nothing like a little drive time through the rolling foothills to notice that the earth has been around a long time. A really long, long, long time. Roads cut throught the sides of these hills expose the ages of the rocks showing layer upon layer. I don't have the layers memorized, but I can appreciate how long the layers have to be on the surface, then undergo some atmospheric change, then get buried for a new surface to be layered on top, then that surface gets buried with time, and so on. It takes my mind a little while to go back in time with each of the layers. It would take thousands of years for the what's on the surface, maybe tens of thousands of years. If I look at the lowest layer it could represent hundreds of thousands, maybe a million years.

Then I look at my own few decades of life here on the earth. It seems that If the earth could sneeze for the same one second that I sneeze, my life would be over. The ancients on the earth liked to use the analogy of life being a vapor and then gone. When I'm gone, my bones return to dust, get buried with the rest of the surface for that ten thousand year era, then continue to compress with each ensuing surface of the crust and get further down in the layers. If people did go extinct somewhere in thefuture, then whoever might see the earth after that would never know that billions and billions of the species of humans filled this teeming earth.

There's a great poem called Ozymandias that expresses the sentiment I just mused about in prose form. Its text is below.

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
'Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
(Percy Shelley, 1818)

Thoughts like these don't argue well for a creator. Why should someone care when years from now, my remains will not really speak from the dust. They'll be part of a layer of earth buried 100,000 years down. Then again, that could be why there is an after-life. We don't have to remain buried 100,000 years down. Some part of us lives on past the sands revealing a colossal wreck. And that appeals to my thirsty soul.

Slaking the unseen thirst

But those who drink the water that I will give them will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give them will become in them a spring which will provide them with life-giving water and give them eternal life.

(John 4.14)

I mentioned at the first of the year that I would be revisiting this verse from time to time throughout the year. So, it's time for a visit.

The Great Teacher gave a great kernel of truth in this saying. Many say the life-giving water is his message. Some say it is the Comforter he said would stand beside us in life. But there might be something a little more. The "water" from the Teacher would become a spring providing a never-ending life. It seems implied to me that the spring is a never-ending source. It might be important, then, because the never-ending life comes from the never-ending source.

A sort of dilemma arises since there is nothing "never-ending" about us humans' lives on the earth. What would be never-ending in such a world in which everything ends? Something invisible, like the soul, is a usual answer here. That is something we cannot see. So is the never-ending source. The line of logic is that our soul, which is unseen, is fed by a never-ending source, also unseen, which gives a never-ending life, which no one has ever seen. Talk about a leap of faith!

This mysterious water is supposedly more than a symbol in this passage, but you wouldn't call it something tangible. It would, however, allow someone never to be thirsty again, that is, fully satisfied. I don't know if that is true or not by observation. Are followers of the Teacher fully satisfied people? Has their invisible thirst been slaked? I think I should see satisfied followers. His water is enough. The restlessness in the soul should come to an end. I still see a lot of searching by followers. I still see that they shift about for fulfillment on the earth.

I think that if people can handle being satisfied about the unseen, what they should be the most restless about, then I should very definitely see satisfied people handling the tangible matters of life. There is not a thirst.

Used

Going... going... go-o-o-ne!

The auctioneer loudly proclaimed.

Sold all right, but

The piece of furniture

was merely

a used piece of furniture.

And that's how it is.

Life as auctioneer

trades us around, and after

the first sale we

are only

a relic, a shape of what we've been used for.

by David Singleton

I can see the future from here

We're going somewhere. I'm trying hard to put my finger on it. It's about to come clear. I'm trying to figure out why I'm so tortured lately about the way religion is organized. Something is out of kelter. I see books with titles such as "Why Men Hate Church." I hear on the radio about "why youth are opting out [of church]." I go to a church service and see many, many people leave without uttering a word to anyone on the way out. I see new churches of all kinds experiementing with various ways to organize. Some try the stip center approach. Some try the mega church approach. Some try the satelllite campus approach. Some try the TV approach.

Here's the deal. If I had grown up in 1930, I would have lived in a much more rural, isolated setting than today. I would have probably not driven to a gathering place, but walked or ridden a wagon or horse. I would have wanted to stay 3 or 4 hours with other believers and eaten a meal with them before returning to the house and my daily chores. I would have had only limited contact with those believers except on days like Wednesday and Sunday to interact with them. If I had a phone I would have more than likely been on a party line. People wrote letters to each other that the other parties would have received in about a week. Televsion? What television. Radio, yes, but very limited on how many stations were in the area. Iceboxes were big. Flying was experimentally done by the military mainly. Music was not "in a can" but remembered in the mind. People sang tunes actually from their lips, not just in mental assent.



Here's the other deal. If had grown up in the year 2008, I would have lived in an urban area, other people around me all the time. I would go to gathering places in my own car, probably not with parents, but by myself or with a friend or two. I can be anywhere I want to go probably in a 30 minute radius, and I have people to see, places to go, things to do, all of which can be accomplished in a matter of 30 minutes or less. I can see anyone, anytime in 30 minutes or lessor virtually on My Space or Facebook. I have a cell phone that also doubles as a camera and computer. I can text message, leave voicemail, or talk directly to a person. I can email if I want right from my phone. Handwritten letters are what I study in history class because I have 4 email accounts and a My Space account. Letters are boring. Television? That's old hat. The generation before me was known as the television generation. I don't have time to sit and watch boring serials. If I watch at all, it's to watch America's Next Top Model, Survivor, Deal or No deal, American Idol, or some reality show. Who needs the pie in the sky stuff or hypothetical TV. Satellite radio is much more efficient than regular radio and has a menu of more than 100 stations for whatever my mood is or whatever the occasion calls for. All my music is professionally sung and recorded. I can listen around the clock. Mostly I walk or jog with earbuds wired to an MP3 or MP4 player. Why sing when you can hear any kind of music sung professionally anytime, anywhere? Oh, and if I want to go outside a radius of 150 miles, I can hop on a commercial flight for about $100 one-way to most places in a 10-state area or anywhere in the world for about $1000.

Here's my deal. I go to work and get more emails than phone calls. I meet with vendors who have flown in from Austin or Albuquerque. I go to conferences over a weekend like the one I attended in Maryland just 3 weeks ago. I sometimes listen to satellite radio at home through my satellite TV. I am on the board of an online high school. I like to blog and put pictures of anywhere in the world on my blog that I capture from the internet. I can call from my cell phone anywhere in the world to anyone, anytime. I often make out-of town phone calls at while driving on trips and nearly always at work. I listen to the radio or MP3 player while I drive 35 minnutes to work in another town from where I live. I many times call people related to work from my car going either to or from home. I can make You Tube videos and send them to people who can watch them on their computers or phone. And I watch Numbers on TV every Friday night.

So, what kind of organizational structure am I really looking for when it comes to other believers. At least once a week I get some kind of devotional email. I can read the Bible in any translation or in the original tongues from internet site like studylight.org. I can see the most inspirational power points with embedded video clips when people send me those in my email. I listen to Christian music any time I want it no matter where I am. I can go to any church's website and download the sermon in audio or video. I listened the other day to a sermon on CD driving back from a friend's house in a town 150 miles away, which is only 2 hours and 15 minutes of my precious time going 72 MPH on an interstate highway. This is why I am tortured. The organizational structure I seek is not in a building with others that I have no contact with outside of that building. It's not in a place in which very little stimulus takes place outside of visiting with individuals that I could make a phone call to and get the same amount of visiting done without driving somewhere.



I say check out the two virtual worlds of 2nd Life and Active Worlds and you will see the church of the future. If I'm in Maryland or in flight to Austin or on the road to see my mother or staying at the lake or at work, anytime, anywhere, I can tap into one of these worlds, carry on conversation and be out. The future from here is anywhere, anytime. I think that is very much in keeping with what the message of Jesus is trying to accomplish. It's also not bound by time or space, so when we do get to the stage of colonizing the moon or terraforming Mars for habitation, the church is there anytime, anywhere.

Language as a way of categorizing life

This "Celtic Knot" is a widespread symbol across northern Europe and in northern China. It doesn't have any particular meaning today. But, 1500 years ago, people had given it meaning of some kind. It appears in too many places. Too bad the meaning has dropped from usage. No one makes the sign these days, except for a few tatoo shops.

The Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis says that the language a person speaks determines the world view that person has. For example, if the language has a direct object in it, then there is the belief that a person, place, object, or idea can receive the action or be the result of the action. In a language in which no direct object exists, then nothing receives the brunt of any action. It's all in how life is categorized. Word particles would serve as another example. When using earlier English, one could translate a famous phrase from Paul's letter to --"O Death, where is thy sting." But, modern translations just say, "Death, where is your sting?" What happened to the "O?" Modern speakers don't look on personifications as terms of address any longer. The earlier English usage required "O" in order to desginate a term of address. Our outlook on life has gone more casual; we don't need the formality of a particle any more. By way of comparison, Latin had a vocative case built into its language because any noun could be used as a term of address. Not all ancient languages had a case built into its language like Latin did.

So when it gets down to each person's experience of the Creator, language categorization matters. Does it matter to anyone today that the name for the Creator is merely the Capitalization of the name for the generic deity–god vs. God. The Hebrews of 1300 BCE said the Creator had a name. Why hasn't that been kept through the ages? Another label that gets used in religious circles is the term "lord." Modern English doesn't use that term any more. It died. So why do people insist on using an archaic term to apply to the Creator? What does that say about a person? That religion doesn't really cater to the modern person? That religion doesn't have modern parallels? That most people think religion is not for everyday living, just a blast from the past in case modern lifestyles don't satisfy a person?

Have you ever been to a class in which a passage from an ancient text had to be illuminated by the history or customs of the times? That's usually nothing more than an attempt to show how the world view from another language shaped the idea being expressed. Language seems to affect one's world view. An example of this is that we don't have a native word for the ancient concept of prophet. We have transliterated the Greek term so we could halfway understand the concept. Hebrew had several words for prophet based on the particular activity of the prophet being emphasized. We moderns could very well do without the word because we don't have that category of person in our society. We prefer something like "visionary." But it seldom has spiritual applications.

I would like to bring all of the above discussion to bear on a New Testament event. Just using the gospel of Mark, Jesus tells a number of people not to say anything or not to tell others after he healed them. Why? I have contemplated the question for years. Perhaps, it can best be understood because of the prinicple of the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis. I don't know what language the Creator speaks. But, for those who have non-verbal encounters with Him, such as a healing, it would seem that using language would automatically categorize the experience in some way or another. Perhaps, the Son of Man wanted people to experience a healing as a whole experience and not reduce it to any category by trying to speak about it. It would be easier to internalize the experience without using words. The healing experience would work itself out in our actions as a response to it.