Between the lines - sometimes

Pragmatics is an area of linguistics that deals with the semantics of words when people speak them. People come to a conversation with different backgrounds or value systems, so the listener doesn't always make the same interpretation of a statement as the speaker. Of course, people can have more than one meaning in mind when they speak. That's the stuff puns are made of, and comedians love the pun. Great irony can be created when more than one meaning is derived from a statement. Beyond humor, though, people can be confused or have different ends in mind based on the interpretation of a word or phrase. For instance, one friend can tell another friend that his uncle is coming to town. Visiting relatives can be good or bad. If the friend doesn't know the uncle, then he might say, "Oh you're in for a great weekend." But, if the friend knows that the uncle is always sarcastic when he talks, then he might say, "Oh, you're in for a long weekend." "My uncle is visiting" is neutral. It's the background brought to the conversation that makes for meaning.

Mafia movies also capitalize on pragmatics. Ordinary words are used to mean something different from the normal meaning of the word. For example, "The package has been delivered" might mean a bundle of money or explosives or a person of interest. Something was delivered, but not a package in the usual sense of the word. The military is famous for this as well because it is important to communicate in code. Anything people want to be vague or clandestine about, they derive words for with special or out-of-the-ordinary meanings.

Another way for pragmatics to work is for a person to quote one line of a work of poetry or a sentence from a book or a line from a song and mean the whole poem. The rabbis of the Jewish faith do this with the Psalms all the time. They will quote one line and really mean the rest of the stanza or the rest of the psalm in the case of short ones. I've heard comics do this with lines from songs as well. Sometimes song lines or song titles capsulize what is going on in a situation so well. So, around quitting time, the secretary I work with will get in a mood to leave early and one of us will quip, "It's five o'clock somewhere." She gets off before 5, but the song title fits the mood. At times I grow nostalgic and hear the chorus to a Zucchero Fornaciari song repeating itself in my mind, "I wanna take a trip back in time, I wanna take a trip back in time." If I share that feeling using that line, others are clueless unless they know the song. If others don't know the song, they just smile and say,"He'll be back in the present momentarily." Ditties are catchy and become representative of situations for us. If everyone understands the situation, life is beautiful. If everyone doesn't, confusion and misunderstanding reign.

Many times communication is a chess game. What does the other person mean by moving his/her piece to that square? What move should I counter with? Is (s)he trying to take as many pieces as possible before striking at the king? Or is (s)he trying to strike straight for the king? Somehow the game gets played as the two reveal their strategies. Perhaps, one difference in communication is that there's not a winner and loser usually. One person wants to understand the other one. It's just that the negotiation of meaning gets bogged down on occasion. There's no sure-fire way to communicate with clarity. Knowing how, when, and where to ask for clarification is the key to clearing the air.

I just wonder

I often wonder about matters of the ancient world. They fascinate me, I guess, because they allow my imagination to think of what could have been true. For example, around 70,000 years ago, a volcanoe erupted in the Indonesian area of the world. Eruptions aren't always a big deal. We see them on TV in modern times. But this one was different.

This eruption was so large, powerful, and long-lasting that what happened with the human-made bomb at Hiroshima looked like child's play. The blast sent plumes of sulfur and other elements into the atmosphere for so long and so high that a 10-year darkness was estimated to have hovered over the earth. That's a long time for no photosynthesis for plants, so most of them died. All you have to do is follow the progression from there. Light is required for plant life in the ocean as well, for the most part. The bottom line was that there was no food for humans after a while, at least not for the number of humans on the earth at the time.

But, not all humans died. Scientists are not sure where the humans that survived lived, but the humans that survived were but a small portion of those that existed before the eruption. In addition, geneticists say that humans were much more diverse than they are now. I would loved to have lived at that time to see a more diverse population. Were there more hair colors, skin tones, eye colors, height delimitations, shapes of bodies, etc. than today? If it is generally true that races gets taller over (lengthy) time, I wonder if it was an age of the little people. Or was it an age of giants whose race had lived 50,000 years before that, but they just couldn't make it because they required too much food? Was there a yellowish or yellow-green skin tone besides the standard ones we see today? Did humans have as much variety in hair color as fish in the sea have stripes and colors in their scales and skin? Some humans today have a whole lot of trouble growing facial hair (in males). Were some of the humans before the eruption with more or less hair on their faces?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions. But it's an exercise in wonder. It doesn't take much to look around the world and find areas full of wonder. Mountains do that for me. Pre-history does it. Space allows for wondrous thoughts of imagination. And it is when I see something full of wonder that I become grateful for the day and age that I live in. And when I am more grateful, I become less dissastisfied. That releases me to live more fully. Of course, there's always one area of dissatisfaction or another, it seems, that crops up. But, that always keeps me from living in such a wonder-filled world that I miss the reality of the present. But, tonight I am wondering about the world of 70,000 years ago and all that it held. And, I am grateful.

What a little trip to the past will do

Today I was rereading some portions of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Don't ask me why. It's just a mood that comes over me once in a long while, usually while I am waiting for the next big event to happen in my life. I forget how intelligent those people were and how life for them was both glorious and mundane at the same time (exactly like ours today).



I was reading the portion of the commentary on the hieroglyphs used for the translation of God and whether the word really applied at all to a supreme being. The commentator for this section of the book wrote his remarks in 1895, but his arguments are still germane today. As he quoted the hieroglyphic texts (in heirogplyphic script - fascinating!) he followed his argument that the Egyptians, from the very beginning, believed in a single supreme being. His argument showed other words used for a plurality of gods, and how they might have not been gods at all, but some idea of mighty spirits (almost the idea expressed in Genesis 6.3-4).

I think the popular modern belief is that the Egyptians believed in a multiplicity of gods, and truly, even in the Egyptian Book of the Dead some of the passages lend themselves to that interpretation. We weren't there, and since there is some room for interpretation as to the Egyptian's beliefs and values, we might not want to speak so definitely about what those ancient people did or did not believe.

I guess the lesson I learn every time I deal with an ancient text of some sort is that they had a view of the world that was different from mine. While I can appreciate the view they held, I don't try to take something that worked for people thousands of years ago and just plug it into my modern view. So many times, I have heard that we are the end result of the decades and centuries that have preceded us. In some regards, a study of western civilization does help us understand that very generally speaking we have connections to how the world developed in Europe from the Roman empire forward.

The notion of God, the after-life, the human pursuit of finding both helps me to center myself. But, it also liberates me to know that civilizations progress, people move forward in their philosophies. A look back is a good starting place. A look at the present is the genuine reality check. A look ahead helps us to know whether to proceed or not based on where we started and where we are. My real trouble has always been that when I connect those three dots of past, present, and future, I don't see the straight line. The line curves and meanders. I hope that means I am smelling roses rather than being off-track.

The wrong will fail, the right prevail

The TV show Numbers represented life so well tonight. It was about a mobster who was going to be executed for committing a crime. The show centered on the mobster's determination to die even though at the last minute evidence surfaced that showed that the mobster did not commit the crime, that his son did. The mobster was dying to protect his son, and willingly doing so. As this was going on, a sub-plot was being developed where the star of the show had made calculations for a basketball team who had lost every game for a number years straight. He was trying out his method in a real game. But the team was losing miserably.

The ending scene switched back and forth between the main plot and sub-plot. The basketball team began winning when the coach put pro players into the college game, but no one knew that the players were professional. The main plot showed the mobster being strapped in for lethal injection for a crime he didn't commit and nothing could be done to stop the execution.

Cheating the system worked in the basketball game, which isn't real life, but cheating the system cost an innocent man his life, which he willingly gave, in the real world. A number of conclusions can be drawn. The one obvious to me at first was that what doesn't count turns out all right and what really counts doesn't turn out right at all.

Life is topsy-turvy like that.

(The title is a line from the Casting Crowns song, "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day" which addresses this dilemma of good and evil in light of the gift of Christmas.)

Voices that soothe

What's the deal?

My stomach has a gnawing in it. My dissatisfaction has grown so that my mask doesn't hide it anymore. My mind seems to have lost the ability to track the environment accurately. I see things that my affective side says exists and my cognitive side says is an illusion. My energy is scattered. My wishes and my reality are too far apart. My ballasts are not equally pressured.

I need to retreat to become centered again. At this point I usually am able to bury myself in translating New Testament passages. That's many times a centering experience for me. Sometimes it's in immersing myself in a particular interest such as an avocation. Occasionally it's to resubmerge into the scholarly world. But I'm not willing to spend the time for any of these pursuits right now.

If I quiet down, I'm sure to hear a calming voice and receive laser-focused energy. So here's to hearing voices through the soothing strains of music from Casting Crowns and Lincoln Brewster.

Through choices not oracles

The oldest form of writing has been found on the backs of turtle shells. They come from China. No one can really read the markings, but the hypothesis is that the ancient people wrote their incantations on the shells for divining purposes. Since that time, people have been writing their ideas on how to forecast their own paths throughout the written record of humans.

I don't think we have come very far in that regard. We are still tyring very hard to divine our futures. It doesn't really entail appeasing the gods or trying to read the portents of the sky or the hidden meanings of natural calamities anymore. But it does mean that we are curious about what lies ahead of us in life's path. In history, the famous oracles like the one at Delphi and famous priestesses like Cassandra stand out because they succesfully informed people of events in their lives.

No one today believes in incantations, and few seek modern Cassandras or psychics. We're much more content to live our lives in relative comfort from one day to the next. We even have an adage in our language advising us to live "one day at a time." But, end of time theories abound, science fiction movies and stories of major world catastrophes flourish, and scientists try to construct a future factoring in global warming.

Perhaps the secret of living is in finding meaning for our lives. Since we learn about ourselves throughout our lives, we have the opportunity to create and recreate meaningful days, years, decades, and quarter-centuries for ourselves. It's easier said than done, but we do have the ability to surround ourselves with activities and people that help to make us better and our lives meaningful. We just need to follow some good old Roman advice - carpe diem (take advantage of the day at hand). So today, I think I'll position myself around those who help me to be better and around those activities that help to build meaning into my life.

A moment in nothingness

I thought I had experienced the entire range of feelings in life, but it was not so.

Several nights ago I was watching a special on the concepts of space and time. In one segment of the documentary, a demonstration was performed with a water balloon hanging from a pole. Someone from a distance shot the balloon with a pellet gun, bursting the balloon. At this point the film was shown one frame at a time. One could actually see the balloon dropping to the floor while the water was intact, still in the shape of the balloon. The water was in place without being held by anything for a couple of frames. In real time it was a matter of a micro-second that the water was suspended in the balloon shape even though the balloon skin had dropped from around the water. The photography was splendid.

The scene was fortuitous. A couple of days later, I was in normal conversation with a good friend. The words spoken were normal and definitely logical for the flow of the conversation. Suddenly, out of nowhere, an epiphany struck in lightning quick fashion. I have had epiphanies before. Sometimes they have come while trying to solve problems; at other times, they have appeared after a period of time mulling an idea. But this day, the epiphany happened without warning and struck so quickly that it was as if the balloon skin had dropped and for a moment in suspended time I glimpsed the raw vision of the logic of the conversation . I didn't at all want to hear the logic because I fiercely, maniacally desired a different conclusion, yet it hung suspended for my eyes to see. I doubt that I was breathing for that suspended moment. It became momentarily dark, my feelings numbed, my soul had been pierced. I'm sure it was a split second, but it seemed like several minutes. Time had stopped. Darkness had set in. My limbs were paralyzed. My psyche had been cut clean to the core, excised of any but one thought. The normal stream of thought had been disrupted, suspended in a vacuum. After my sensations returned, I had the very bleakest, direst of feelings, so much so that I took a couple of minutes after my good friend left to check to see if I was in reality.




My thinking process tried to sort that moment in nothingness on the drive home, but to no avail. My mind refused to rationally analyze what had been presented to me in a flash of a moment. I sat in silence, once home, for a long time. I finally turned on the TV, but turned it off after eating because it was much too cheery. The night was fitful. I could not rest. Finally, I just got up at 2:30 AM and tried to think through why my mood had been so altered. I knew that I was headed for a morning that was all out of kelter. My mood turned to something really foul. By morning, I perfectly understood the reason why I had had the moment in time the day before when the world turned dark,breathless, and vacuous. I had earnestly, intensely wanted an outcome counter to the agonizing epiphany shown to me. I had no plan on how to work myself out of the realization from the day before. Every fiber of my being rejected the outcome of the epiphany.

By noon the next day and after some human interaction to take me away from my darkened thoughts, I was back on track to living life normally. But, that small moment in which I came face to face with an idea that I had hoped against hope would not happen has taught me that I haven't experienced the full range of emotions and that I am not fully in control of my life like I had thought. Not even close. Life has hit me with lightning strikes before, but not like this one. I had to once again put one foot in front of another and slowly emerge from night and silence into a world that had changed for me once again.

**************************************
I don't know what is happening. Life has radically changed. Ideas from my youth on the way the world was supposed to be forever and ever, immovable forever and ever amen, have been taken from me and flung 100 galaxies away. It seems like echoes from another lifetime to hear words like "my yoke is easy and my burden is light." I cannot take another sharpshooter epiphany, but I don't control that.

2nd Lamentations

I realize that the first book of Lamentations is written in beautiful poetry and is about the destruction of Jerusalem as a symbol for the loss of an era. So, I know that this second little lamentation is not comparable in most of the significant regards. But, I still feel compelled to write a small lamentation.

3000 years ago, in the mideast, families really did ban together. In fact, brothers felt strongly enough about familial care that if one of the brothers died, the brother left took his brother's wife to care for. Even in the book of Ruth, great care is taken to reflect the idea of familial care. Some of the Old Testament's most famous words are between Naomi and Ruth. Naomi loses her husband and sons, so wants to make sure that Ruth is taken care of. But Ruth pleads, "Don't ask me to leave or not to follow you home... your people are my people, your God is my God..." Also, once back in Judea, Cousin Boaz takes care of Ruth. In Nigeria, just 300 years ago, there were more women than men, so men made sure that the women were all cared for by marrying them and building compounds for them to live in. If something happened, the wife's family took the daughter back and then gave a dowry to someone else who would marry her for his compound.

Examples abound through history, but these two illustrate an age-old tradition. Now for the modern tradition. Brothers and sisters grow up, marry, move to far off places, call each other, 3 times a year, enjoy a holiday together in the fall, visit each other once every five years at best, take the grand kids for an annual visit to grand parents, and call it a close-knit family.

Independence is good. Women's roles have certainly changed. Mobility has lent itself to more opportunity for work. Transportation has made it easy to close distances between spread out family members. Phones and laptops make connecting easy and fast. Life is good, but families are split. The nuclear family, though good in concept, has no advantage over the non-nuclear family at this stage of a family's development.

Brothers and sisters in far-flung places replace their roots out of necessity with the "friend that sticks closer than a brother." As sad as it is, the direction won't change in the forseeable future. There's no advantage to the nuclear family. That bothered me at first. But why? It's reality. So, I just need to blog about it. Paradigms shift. End of story.

Quick check on dissatisfaction

One of my friends is a businessman and very in tune with the financial happenings of the day. Right now he's a little down not because he's doing badly in his business, but because all his financials principles are being crossed by the current administration. I saw him just last night and noticed it has affected his otherwise cheerful attitude.

It happens to me sometimes. I have clothing, shelter, and income, yet I let some outside influence drag on me. I guess I could say that is part of being human. But, what I need to say is learn a lesson from a friend. Be grateful. Whenever I have stopped to see what is good in my life versus what is a challenge or what is outright evil, it is the good that has the longer side of the list.

Inventories of one's life are always revealing. It's probably time for me to take another one. The road below me doesn't feel so straight and narrow.

How do you spell that mental cleansing word again?

Katharsis is a word derived from Greek, so it doesn't look much like other English words derived from Anglo-Saxon or Latin. It's a word that represents how one continues having good behavior. We macho Americans don't like the idea of a catalyst for good behavior because we think we are much too strong for cleansing our corrupted behaviors. Sometimes we think that we live on a higher plane than to have the need for reflection which is required by katharsis.

Let's make a comparison here. As we go through life eating what we want without regard for calorie intake, cholesterol level, sodium amounts, sugar amounts, family history, ad infinitum (ad nauseum), we began to show the ravages of these in our bodies. If we make no adjustments, then we end up looking rather sloven from overeating or appear shaky, dizzy, or faint from glucose shock, or become irate from hypertension, or show ourselves to be haggard and lethargic from living the sedentary life. And what if we go through life reacting to life without regard to what happens to our value system, our spouse's actions, our children's behavior, our friends' snubs, etc. (ad nauseum)? If we make no adjustments, then we end up killing ourselves, "going off on someone," opting to withdraw, changing values, raging against the machine in general (becoming negative, irritable, complaining).

In both our body's case and our reactions to life we need cleansings every so often. This cleansing is referred to as katharsis in the case of our reactions to life. We all need someone to speak to about the "stuff" in our lives that build up. Just that conversation to another person does wonders for our minds. It frees us after it's over to build plans, to dream again, to get past an obstacle, to love again, and many other wondrous activities. Cleansing is as necessary to longevity of the mental state as it is to the body or physical state.

We would do well to pay attention to an age-old idea captured by an ancient word. It would help with melt-downs. It would keep us fresher and healthier. It would prevent us from being jaded and bitter. It would help us forgive and love. It would allow us to give a cup of water to a traveler, to say an encouraging word to an orphan, to hold our tongues when we would rather shout "Fool" to someone else. In the accumulation of vocabulary words for our conscious mind to use, we should make sure that our mechanism for cleansing is there: k-a-t-h-a-r-s-i-s.

Did what you said mean what I think it meant or did it mean what you said?

Why do people have trouble saying what they mean? For several reasons. 1) Those who listen have the option of making judgments about those who are talking. 2) Those who are talking are sizing up how much of something to tell someone else, so they leave parts out thinking that the person would be bored with the topic or can't be trusted with the topic. 3) Those engaged in the conversational dance negotiate as they go. The speaker thinks, "I'll tell so much, see what the response is, and continue if I don't get the signal to quit." The other thinks "If the speaker goes over 10 seconds of running speech I will have to hide the yawn." 4) Those who are speaking want to hide the facts because they don't know the listener well, or they don't want to hurt the listener. 5) Those who speak think very little of the listener, so they don't want to waste their own precious time.




The list could go on. Mainly, the reason is that people don't want honesty; they want image. It is so refreshing to be around someone who is honest in speech. When that happens stress is reduced, and I feel compelled to be honest in response. We all get inklings when speech is less than honest. Even if we don't know all the speech markers for lies or know methods for telling deception, we can detect an atmosphere of judgment or unworthiness or boredom. It increases the tension in the air; stress heightens.

I have been in my current job for a little over 4 years. Truly it seems like 44 years, but that's because the first 3 years were so filled with people not saying what they meant that the atmosphere could have been cut with a knife. Now, it's different in my immediate working atmosphere. Days are long enough, but the communication is much more honest. There's laughter even. And where there's laughter, there's clear, honest communication. The stress has been cut in half.

I think it has been written somewhere about letting yes mean yes and no mean no. Oh yeah, the Good Book. It's amazing what happens to a person's inner being when that occurs.

Humility 101 for the 1 millionth time

I just got back from a conference. It was better than expected. One of the tidbits of learning I came away with was a quotation from Heraclitus (6th century BCE Greek). He stated in his one extant work, "the path for the way up is the same path as the one for the way down." My immediate reaction was, "H-m-m-m, I'll have to ponder that one for a while."

Now I've pondered. That's a rather startling statement since a person can't really tell whether he or she is on the way up or down. We might think we're on the way up, but if we are disoriented, we're really on the way down. I think that's the point though. If we can't tell which way is up or down, then we shouldn't be so pompous in our daily walks. Of course, the words were hollow coming from Heraclitus since he was from a very wealthy and influential family.

But, as arrogant as Americans are, I guess it seems a little hollow that I would even reflect on the passage myself. I was in a session tonight trying to teach a 9th grader how to write an essay. One of the comments I make to students learning to write is to lose the arrogance that Americans have and learn to proofread. Not everything that rolls off the lips, comes out the tip of the pen, or flashes across the mind is worthy of remaining unrevised.

Just when I think I have learned the lesson well from experience, I seem to take two steps backward. I did that even today. I thought I would take a risk, said something, and then realized that it was arrogant of me to even have had a thought like that cross my mind. So I say to myself, "Physician heal thyself." Tomorrow will be a new day, and hopefully, a less pompous day.

Eating bread = life. Simple!

Cultures from 1000s of years ago have had the notion that people could live forever after they died. I don't really know where they got the idea. Egyptian tombs are the most representative of the old world's idea of living forever, but it existed before them. Why the Jews didn't believe in an after life is beyond me. I suppose that they were literalists and their idea of following the Talmud didn't include providing for an after life. It seems that as the years of the monarchy went by that some of the Jews, at least, had developed the idea that they lived forever through their posterity.

When the Son of Man walks on the earth's stage and has a conversation with some of his fellow Jews, as he did in John 6, it's no wonder, then, that they are shocked. They wanted to follow him for his miracles of healing and multiplying food, but when he started saying that he was bread from heaven and partaking of his bread would lead to the afterlife, he lost the crowd. They wanted to see a few more miracles before fully trusting that what he was saying about himself was true.

Maybe it's just me, but having the option of an afterlife sounds pretty inviting. The present life is what we make of it all right, but it's rife with disappointment and sadness. An afterlife with the Maker of Life sounds much better. If the Son of Man's bread is all I have partake of to get this life, I'm there. Of course, some would say that it's easier said than done to trust that what he said and did was straight from heaven and to follow his teachings. I don't know about "hard," but following His teachings is counter-cultural at times. That's just the process of making decisions, though. And humans are pretty good at making decisions that favor them. So, I'm thinking that eating bread and gaining the afterlife is a good deal. I can decide in favor of the counter-cultural when the odds are so much in my favor.

Working on noble aftermaths

The scene near the end of the 25-year-old TV movie Aspen took place in a court room. A lawyer was representing someone whom the city residents thought had murdered another person important in their neighborhood. The trial was controversial, but the powerful people of Aspen wanted the judge to put away the defendant. At a point just before the judge was to give his verdict, the defense lawyer asked to speak to the judge in his chambers. The request was granted. In the chambers the lawyer took the judge back to a skiing incident in their adolescence in which the lawyer had saved the judge's life. As adolescents, the young man who became judge, had promised his friend who became a prominent defense attorney, that if there was ever a time he could repay his friend for saving his life, he would do it. Back in the judge's chambers the defense attorney was saying that he knew the judge had the pressure of the town and the influential people on him and that he would probably rule against his client. He said his client was innocent and all the evidence presented was circumstantial. The judge agreed about the evidence being circumstantial, but told his friend he could not rule in his favor. The attorney then reminded the judge of his promise to repay a debt and said, "I'm asking for the repayment now. I saved your life. Rule for my client." The judge declined.

I still remember my emotions. I really couldn't believe the betrayal that happened in the judge's chambers. That riveting scene has been made a permanent part of my psyche, and I find myself emotionally responding to betrayal in all of its forms. There's a similar scene in the movie Braveheart. Mel Giblson plays Wallace excellently. The nobles of Scotland tell Wallace they will support his independence movement and call him to their headquarters. But, he is betrayed into British hands by the one with whom he had exchanged promises. He goes on to die a noble death, but the moment of betrayal by the lords of Scotland particularly repusles me.

Then, of course, there is the case of the one who called himself God's Son. He was with his followers in Jerusalem for the holiest of holidays. It was a show down. The high priest could see that the crowds were going to capitulate their normal beliefs in favor of the teaching of this Son of God. The story of Judas' betrayal is well known. But it still rips out the heart to read of or see the delivery of God's Son to the Temple Guard and eventually the Roman authority.

Humans betray each other. That's what we do. I am as guilty as the next person, so I don't know why I have highlighted this particular human activity in my mind. Maybe it's because the blade that causes the wound pierces the flesh to the bone. Maybe it's because the healing afterward takes so long. Maybe it's because the anger that is incited burns red hot searing in the pain and eventually scarring the mind. Betrayal causes temporary disorientation.

The really big betrayals in my own life have resulted each time in a total redirection of life's flow. They have caused great questioning of core values. There's no telling where I would have ended up had they not happened. I don't know that my character has been strengthened by them, but I am a better discerner of others' characters. The final scenes of Aspen have been burned into my psyche. So, I understand more about human nature. The downside is that it affects how I care about others, how much I care about others, and when I care about others. I'm not considered to be a very open person by those around me. I need to work on that. It's a result of major redirects in my life brought about by betrayals. But, since the Son of God has been down that path, I can do as He did and do as Wallace did who followed Him, and work on noble aftermaths.

Olive leaf

To ~j...

Grand calls, plans, and plodding

Once in a while, I see that certain people are prepared for a certain moment in time. Mordecai's famous words to Esther from the book by the same name are, "If you don't go before the king, God will rescue his people from another quarter, but who knows but that you have come to this kingdom for exactly this moment." Of course the Son of Man knew his timing and place. He told his followers on several occasions. John wrote in retrospect of these conversations, "He knew where he was from and where he was going." And a few chapters later John wrote the statement from Jesus' lips from the trial, "I have come for one purpose, to speak truth." In the Old Testament apocrypha, in Judith, the main character, Judith, knew that she was the one to deliver her people from the hand of the enemy when the city elders caved in to the demands of the Persians. So, she willingly accepted her role.

I suppose that is why people say that God has a plan for their lives. I think God has a plan. I think God helps people fit into his plan as they become willing to do so. But, I'm not so strong on the plan for my life part. Some people, yes, have moments when God has called their numbers. They're center-stage. Others, like me, don't ever hear their number called, unless it hasn't happened yet. I'll write another blog when this occurs. In retrospect of my life, I see that on occasion The Maker of destinies has said, "Yes," or "No" to some of my desires. But, that seems to be different from the grand call or the plan for my life.

I'm still breathing, so I guess I could have an epiphany about my plan. In the meantime, I will plod along doing what I can to follow the teachings of the Son of Man. His role after all was to tell truth.

The charmed life

You residents of Thebes, our native land, look on this man, this Oedipus, the one who understood that celebrated riddle. He was the most powerful of men. All citizens who witnessed this man’s wealth were envious. Now what a surging tide of terrible disaster sweeps around him. So while we wait to see that final day, we cannot call a mortal being happy before he’s passed beyond life free from pain. (from the final lines chanted by the chorus in Oedipus the King by Sophocles)

Oedipus the king had it going his way from birth, literally. He was supposed to have been discarded on the cliffs of the countryside. He survived that because of the kindness of a shepherd. Lucky for Oedipus, the shepherd delivered him to a king's household for raising in a not too distant city-state from where he entered the world. And, still lucky for him, he became a great king in his own hometown city-state by solving a riddle. Yes, the stars shone on Oedipus. His wife and children were beautiful and loyal. His subjects admired him. He lived what you might call the charmed life.

But, life is long. At least it was long enough for Oedipus' fortune to change. Unlucky for him, he had been born under a terrible prophecy. He was caught in a spiral finally in which he slept with his mother and killed his father, the cursed prophecy given at his birth. Really unlucky for him, he lost Apollos' favor. He gouged out both his eyes for penance and then was banished from the town he ruled for fulfilling his prophecy.

Life's full of ironies and illusions. Life is full of disillusions for that matter. That's what the closing words of the play by Sophocles relay to us. I guess around 425 BCE, people just like you and me, looked at life and thought that some people lived charmed lives. I know we look out at the country club tennis courts and wish we had the life of leisure like those people. Or we are driving down the street and see those Porshes and Mercedes and fantasize about the life those people are living, wishing we had it for ourselves. We like to drive through the really "nice" sections of town and wish we had a piece of that American Pie. Sometimes we even think we're headed toward the good life we deserve and then a setback occurs. We think that the people driving those Mercedes, living in those nice houses or playing tennis on the courts while the rest of the world is working don't have any setbacks. Their lives are charmed.

Perhaps, the great teacher summed up what the Greeks mused about as they left Sophocles' play in the statement, "The first shall be last, and the last first." But I do like the elaboration of Sophocles. One of the translations of this passage of Oedipus uses regret instead of pain from life's circumstances. In that case, it could be paraphrased that a person should not count him(her)self fortunate by having a life of no regrets until the day (s)he dies. Only then would you have no allowance for regretful times. Either way, you have to die before you know for sure that you've made it through life unscathed.

No one does of course, that is, go through life unscathed. People divorce, get betrayed, lose someone near to them, have recalcitrant children, become disillusioned, lose large sums of money, have businesses go under, get cast out of their families, and much more. Really, that is the point of the play as voiced by the chorus. It is great use of hyperbole, a form of irony.

So, if the Apollos-worshiping community of BCE times recognized the way of the world, and human nature hasn't changed since then, why would we have an expectation in our modern world that we would go through life unscathed? That's why I am banking on the last being first. There are a lot of us who are running last right now. I look forward to coming in first at the end.

Prophetic

I want to recall two mile markers in my life to start with. One is the reading of the book "The Power to Be," by Tom Olbricht 25 years ago, a book based on Jesus' lifestyle from the gospel of Mark; the other is a conversation with a woman named Sharon who taught school in Odessa 20 years ago. The book posed the thought that people should live in the moment rather than depending on and following some rigid schedule in order to be productive. The conversation and subsequent poem by Sharon, "See Me, See Life" referenced people who are very accepting because they don't live with preconceived notions of how others ought to act or converse with you. People should be able to take your words only for the moment and interpret them for what they are. (Boy, this should be a prime directive for translators, but that is a whole other subject, a battle for another day).

I subscribe to both of these ideas, but it's a cognitive accord only. In reality over the years, I have blown off other people because of a schedule. I have come to conversations with a preconceived notion on how it might go since the other person has a track record with me. I have tried to prepare for what might have been said rather than allowing for the moment's negotiation of what actually was being said. I had both an umbrella schedule and a specific schedule. That's what productive people did. I experienced 1 day out of 100 in which I let the day took me where it wanted. Frequently, I saw opportunities to help or to offer input or to prepare for only in retrospect.

So, when I reflect on the two mile-markers of the third decade of my life, I have to wonder if I why those two mile-markers were important to me. I certainly did not let the their message inform my actions. But, maybe I read the material then so that I would be prepared for the present decade of my life.

I just love the technology of the present. Now, I send e-mails that are productive for my work all right, but since they work at bascially instantaneous speed, it leaves time to write (what an anachronism) friends and family - by email of course. Not only is the transmission of the message faster, the painstaking time it took to handwrite drawn out letters has disappeared. Typing is so much faster. Then there's the phone, which has been around a while, but you used to have be around a land line. The cell phone has made that a memory. I can call friends anytime, pretty much anywhere. The other day I received a phone call from a friend in Fort Worth who just wanted to know how to spell a word. Cell phones have made conversations shorter, but much more frequent. And then there is the phenomenon of text messaging. I receive several a day - short little reminders that someone who cares is on the other end. Oh, that's not all. If a person wants to plan anything or assemble a written document of any kind, Googledocs are just the thing. It keeps workers and/or friends in the loop on basically everything even meetings missed. And, I love Twitter. The little details of life or the little tidbits of parts of life can be shared with whoever you wish to share those tidbits with. All of this is only a partial way to keep up. I can shop online from anywhere, remember people with e-cards for their improtant events, keep a transparent log of my life, philosophy, interests, work, etc., by blogging. I can prepare for family vacations through a collaboration center so that one phone call can be made instead of 3. I can choose about any app(lication) I want on a phone so that I can check the temperature, make a calculation, take a movie clip, find a movie, order flight tickets, or google my house on googleearth.

The deliberate world of the late 80s has yielded to a customized, much more seamless, lightning-speed world. I'm not out of breath trying to keep up either. I can keep pace because of the ease of the devices that deliver this new world. I can let the day take me anywhere it wants because its faster and shorter spurts of little information allow me to go several places in a shorter amount of time, breathlessly. I can take people more at face-value with fewer preconceptions because text-messaging, emails, IM, short phone calls allow me fewer words and tones of voices to judge them by. I'm happier, the people I communicate with are happier. Life is good.

The other day I received an email from a friend from Abilene while at work wanting to know what was up in my blogs. I answered him within a short amount of time. He responded. I responded. I had a productive work day, left for home made 3 calls on my trip home setting up supper, touching base with a work colleague, and ordering take-out to eat. I received a text message from my daughter, so I replied to her (yes, on the road). After eating, checked my email, blogged, twittered, worked virtaully with a student on virtual high school in its collaboration center, then went to bed with my cell phone's MP3 playing soothing strains through my earbuds. Yeah - living la vida buena, hermanos y hermanas!

Literalism doesn't inspire me

Generally, when people talk to me of heaven, I don't have a picture in my mind because I don't believe that a picture of heaven is painted anywhere on the pages of the sacred book. So, when one of my favorite people began giving accolades to a book called "Heaven," it was hard for me to get as excited as this person wanted me to be. But, I read excerpts here and there in the opening stages of the book because that is where the premise was set out on how the author knew so much about heaven.





I saw right away that the author's view of the sacred book was derived from a literal view and from a view that allows Old Testament passages to be put right alongside New Testament passages without regard for original context. One of the conclusions from one of the chapters was that we would be staying on the earth, a new earth granted, but the earth nonetheless. I don't know why we would need a new earth, but literalists don't seem to question much. They seem to merely take what is said and try to make the best of an explanation. Oh, and yes, a new heaven came with the new earth. No explanation on why a new heaven was needed either.

For me, just because one would be in the presence of the Creator is a good reason to desire to be "in heaven." And, I would get to be with those who have preceded me to heaven. That's another good reason to be there. But as to its appearance after I'm there or its allure to those who fear its alternative or want the image of golden streets, pearly gates,etc. or need the structure of a new earth inhabited by Christians and governed by the Son of God, I have no idea why they feel such a compunction to concoct unnecessary inferences. The Son of Man chose not to disclose any of its treasures or secrets, so I'm wondering how a human could write such an assertive position over 200 pages long on a matter not discussed by the one who came from there and promised to return to take us where he is.

So although my excitement over the book "Heaven" won't be seen in my demeanor, my desire to be taken to the place where my loved ones reside and to ride there with the one who will return for me runs deep and emits a tranquil aura around my face and a long-abiding belief in my core. I don't need a modern fabrication (book). I only need the original assurance that this will happen. No kaleidoscope picture of passages have to be cut and pasted into some fanciful mosaic, just an assurance noted from the lips of the one who will return. Then I'm satisfied and truly excited.

Just say no to following the regular Joe

I pass a sign from time to time on a church building. It says, "Abundant Life Church." I have no idea what the people are like who enter those doors, so this is not about the people. It's the phrase "abundant life" that begs a comment.

I barely know what "life" is, so "abundant life" escapes me. Oh, I know the verse well enough in John 10:10, "I have come to bring life to you and for you to have it more abundantly." But, in the context of John 10:1-18, life is put in opposition to destruction, theft, and murder. These last 3 were products of false Chosen Ones, the former a product of the true Chosen One.

It seems that the semantic set up in the passage is one of contrast. The focus is not just on abundant life, but on the kind of life that is distinct, not offered by those who destroy, kill, and steal. It's not abundant life, but a life that is different from the life offered by those who destroy and plunder. Powerful men who chose to plunder cities and maim its citizens just for conquest couldn't really offer a full or satisfactory life. There had been other chosen ones, sons of God to grace the earth. Alexander the great called himself with such an appellation. The pharaohs of the middle dynasties of Egypt did. Augustus Caesar did. More than one Persian king did. But following these earthly chosen ones didn't offer a fully satisfactory life. It lacked the spritual dimension, the life that might extend past what the present moment offered.

I'm not much of a follower. But, I can follow somone who has more to offer than what I see in the here and now. The offer is fuller, more satisfactory. It contains worthy desires that have actions as their vehicles for manifestation. I would have made a lousy ancient citizen for a king who thought he was all that, the chosen of the gods. I would have made a lousy follower of King George III in our own Revolutionary War. But, I can follow someone who offers a spiritual dimension.

The (in)tangibles

The mundane activities of our days drain the life from us. I know that routines are what the brain depends on, even constructs, for self-preservation of the body. But, I also know that what preserves on one hand deprives or destroys on the other hand. In fact, if someone asked me to tell them how my life was going, I'd tell them about my routines. That would be boring. Of course, if I was asked about my life, I could answer about the activities that caused my adrenalin to flow, or that raised my excitement level. Likely, though, the person would get my official mundane line, "Everything's fine."

Besides saying, "Iam life," the Master from the father said, "I have come to bring life to you." I know cognitively that he was not offering more mundane activities to perform in life. Still, so many people are not enjoying life. They're just moving from one mundane activity to another without too much arousal, stimulus, or excitement. I have been like that and find myself falling into that pattern more often than I like.

Now, supposing I have taken the Master up on his offer of life, what should my "life" be like? Is it simply modeling teachings such as "turn the other cheek?" Is it trying to be excited all the time because I have some notion that life=excitement? It seems to me to be the idea of something unseen, the invisible qualities of "life." It's having consistently kind behavior to others. It's helping friends. It's smiling at children because I know that scowls don't convey happines. It's spending money on others for lunch or showers or unexpected gifts sometimes. It's knowing what roles I have divided with a spouse, and acting on those roles with a degree of cheerfulness since I agreed to that role. It's not answering in sheer anger when prodded to do so by my own children. And it's much more. But, the above list is not merely a bunch of actions; the list is a bunch of desires to be good, decent, kind, helpful, measured, or consistent that manifest themselves in various actions over time. They are the invisible qualities that have all kinds of actions to them as vehicles to convey the desire visibly.

I think most of all, though, that the life that was brought just to me entails acting out the invisible qualities mentioned above through the set of talents given to me and presenting them to others through my personality. Then, I know I have life that is natural because I am using what I was endowed with, but also I have life that is supernatural because the desire to continue to use my talents without tiring does not diminish like energy that needs replenishing each night after being expended during the day.

Life brings energy to my soul, my psyche. It brings light to a mundane day, spring to my step, smiles to my face, laughter to my friends, a tune to my tongue, and glint of hope to my tiny life of 1 of 6 billion.

A reaction against the Accuser who stands before God

Why all this interest in the pursuit of knowledge of lying? I don't know for sure. If I go with the idea that people pursue in life what they most need, then I have one of those reasons. It has been hypothesized that people become psychologists because they are exploring some deep-seated need of their own. People become lawyers in order to put order to the chaos of their own world. People become firemen or policemen in order to learn more of their fascination of destruction and control, respectively. The list goes on. I guess I would want to dissect the lie because of need to understand where deception and betrayal come from or the need to set the record straight. Of course, there are other hypotheses for pursuing something in life. People are generally speaking, opportunists when given the chance. This means that I have seen an opportunity that will get me ahead in the game of life.

I really do think lying is despicable when it affects others. Nearly all lying does, but when lying causes people to alter their lives because of the advantage others might gain by lying, that's when I turn red and blow fuses. I'm not powerful enough or well conncected enough to hold people in check, but through knowledge of lying, perhaps I can help in making sure that people don't get taken advantage through some people's darker, deceptive nature.

I think I get this idea from my religious values. I find that the Great Teacher had a similar view to mine. He didn't mince words when he came into contact with some of the most ostensibly religious people of his time and place. On one particular occasion these very pious Jews were criticizing him for putting himself in a higher position than they were in relation to God. The Teacher retorted: "You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father's desires. From the very beginning he was a murderer and has never been on the side of truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies" (John 8.44). Now that's a strong statement - telling people they are the children of the father of all lies. Another example comes from the Apocalypse of John. In one of the scenes of his visions, he sees a war in heaven. During the course of this war, Satan is thrown out of heaven. The author uses much of the same idea in his description and function of Satan that Jesus did. "The huge dragon was thrown out–that ancient serpent, named the Devil, or Satan, that deceived the whole world. He was thrown down to earth, and all his angels with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, 'Now God's salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority! For the one who stood before our God and accused believers day and night has been thrown out of heaven'" (Revelation 12.9-10). There he is, the evil one, still deceiving, still accusing, still lying in this vision.

Because there is such a strong reaction to lying in a book I deem sacred, then I believe I have taken that to heart because it matches some of my other desires, interests, experiences, and training in life. Many have pursued other parts of the Good Book and done well. This is my way of becoming leaven on the earth to create a little niche for good in an otherwise very evil, illusionary world. So, I try to track down the tangles in the web when people practice to deceive. It's a small niche The Maker of Interests has allowed me to fill.

Soul Sweetness

Attorneys play this vicious game called depositions. In this game, witnesses try to cover their tracks while attorneys try to expose the same tracks. Conversational Currents is a method that charts the 50 word responses of a witness being deposed. It tells how many responses occur before a witness comes to one of those big whopping lies as measured by the type-token ratio method spoken of a post or two ago. Some people like to build up to telling a lie. So, their chart will show a string of responses before the big one is told. Other people like to tell the lie up front so they can be consistent in their lie from that point on. Still others prefer to see where the line of questioning is going, spring the lie, then try to manipulate the questioner into ending the questioning because they have told the substance of their story. There are all kinds of styles.

Another benefit of the Conversational Currents method is that it shows where in the organizational structure of an attorney's questioning the really big lies are and where the minor lies are. If the attorney can have this pointed out before the trial, then (s)he can rearrange the argument to crescendo to the main lie and point it out as such, or (s)he can point it out at the very beginning and continue to hammer the point home throughout the rest of the questioning. Some attorneys like to present the lie in the original line of questioning and then hang the person out to dry on the cross-examination. Knowing the placement of the big lies and the minor lies in a deposition can help an attorney restructure questioning and final arguments in the trial and gain an advantage.

One other benefit of Conversational Currents is that it guts the witness of hedging that may happen. It makes the witness skip the hedge and become more direct. Most of the time that makes it easier for a jury or judge to see the lie being told. It's nice to be able to strip a lie down to its raw, cold, twisted skeleton. The liar knows (s)he has been attacked with a full frontal assault, that's for sure.

Many people think truth comes out in body gestures even though the words come out in lies. I think they have that wrong. A person can easily learn the tricks of the trade on body gestures and control the gestures just to trick someone "trained" to watch. Both lies and truth come out in the same utterance. Words having truth value can be separated from words having false value. The thrill of the hunt for me is in successfully illustrating that separation. It's sweetness to the soul.

Chess, anyone?

Hedging is one of the oldest games in town. It's seen as "not really lying." There are a number of ways to hedge. One can express uncertainty. One can just give partial knowledge of what is happening and withhold the other part of what (s)he knows. One can stall by using "um..." and pausing, hoping that the other party will come back in on the conversation and continue talking. One can also give mitigators to anything certain, such as starting a thought with "I think..." or "I believe" or ending a thought with "I'm not really sure" or simply trailing off without completing a thought.

Many people would not give hedging a second thought, or they would think that hedging is not really circumventing the truth, merely delaying how to say the right words. That would be false. Hedging is deliberate. However, when taken together with a type-token ratio, it helps put the right perspective on what the person is trying to lie about. Sometimes it shows that a person really has not rehearsed a stretch of statements. The more the hedge, the less rehearsed a statement is. Sometimes it shows that a person has definitely rehearsed a statement. The more direct an answer to a question, the less the hedge, and the receiver of the information is deceived into thinking that the direct answer was not a lie.

One of the most obvious hedges is the person who says, "I don't know, but..." The speaker thinks (s)he has put the listener off the trail of truth with "I don't know." But, it's a deliberate distractor for the truth that follows, usually not in whole but in part, and usually the last part of the statement.

Hedging is fun because it doesn't have to be counted. It just has to be noticed. Hedging is also part of the chess game with liars. They use it to enshroud their real lies or throw hunters off the smell of the game they are hunting. But, game playing is fun. One can get really good at chess, figuratively speaking of course.

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.