I just began listening to a lecture series on Martin Heidegger, the German Philosopher with questionable ethics due to his involvement in Nazism.
Honestly, the first time I heard that he was involved with the Nazis, I got really cautious about listening to his ideas at all. I mean, why listen to the philosophy of someone who was part of one of the greatest evils of all time? What on earth could he possibly say that would have any sort of value for me?
But no sooner had that thought occurred to me, than another one entered my head: Why is it that I'm so quick to judge or label everything a person is (or was) based on one area of their lives?
I can't rationalize what Hitler and the Third Reich did. It was terrible. But that doesn't mean that individuals within the Nazi Party were completely devoid of good. (What about Shindler's List, for instance?) It would be like labeling me as an American and writing off everything about me because our Country's foreign policy is pretty messed up right now.
What's more convicting to me is that in a sense, that's exactly what the Nazis did when they began a genocide against Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies (among other victims of the holocaust). Hitler's gang couldn't see beyond ethnicity, religion, or sexuality. They reduced human beings to one defining characteristic and made an assumption that the person was completely worthless because of it.
So, even though I'm not the one carrying the gun- if I can't see beyond the fact that Heidegger had ties to the Nazis (or if I reduce anyone to a certain label), I think it puts me on shaky ground. I think it puts me just a few steps out of line with the Nazis.
That's why I've decided to listen to this lecture with an open mind, hoping for something good rather than assuming that I'm going to be listening to flawed logic and corruption.
This week's banner winner prefers to remain unnamed and is "donating" his/her link to KIVA.
KIVA is a microfinancing organization that helps individuals living in third world nations secure small, interest free loans that they can pay back whenever their business takes off.
It's amazing what $1000 can do in a third world country. That may not seem like much to us here in the US, but it's literally enough seed money to begin a small business with the right hands.
There was an interesting social commentary over at socialmediarockstar.com the other day calling out social media users have a lot of people following them, but don't follow-back. There are a few reasons for this complaint, but I think the main one is that the author is frustrated with anyone who expects people to listen to what they have to say without taking the time to listen to what other people have to say.
This commentary, is specifically about Twitter seeing as it's a social networking tool that's supposed to be about interaction and thought transfer rather than a mere one-way street. So a user who has a lot of people reading his tweets without reading anyone else’s tweets or replies is somewhat contrary to some of the cultural experiences within the twitter community.
For those of you who don’t use twitter, basically, the whole thing comes down to this: a lot of folks- especially early adopters- use twitter to hone their ideas and get feedback rather than just telling the world “what I am doing right now.” The community has formed around the theory that the mutual exchange of information causes positive growth and change. Put simply- when individuals converse about thoughts and ideas we’re all better for it.
And I think that to some degree, it’s true.
So, when twitter users encounter another user who likes to talk more than the listen and reply (or worse, won’t follow-back to honor their readers), it makes them upset that their perfect little world of mutual information sharing and connection doesn’t actually exist.
Personally, I think that complaining about it is pretty juvenile. I mean, if someone doesn’t want to participate- so what?
The person who loses out the most in the equation is the one who isn’t getting feedback and response from their ideas. So if a lot of people read what you write and you don’t care to know what they think of it- it really shouldn’t matter to the rest of us.
So, that’s why I wonder if twitter users like the author of this article are really mad about the principle or if they secretly want to be “in the club” and when a user doesn’t follow them it make them feel like they’re back in middle school- wishing they, too, could be a part of the big sleepover that the select “coolest” kids are attending.
From my own perspective, follow-backs are an ideal that should only be implemented when it’s mutually beneficial for both users. If I like what someone is saying, then I can choose to follow them, but if the person doesn’t know me or doesn’t think that I have anything useful to offer to them in return- I don’t see why they should feel obligated to follow-back merely because I chose to follow them in the first place.
I mean, if this idea is taken to an extreme, then:
1. When a company or organization randomly decides to follows me, I’m obligated to follow-back, even if their tweets are merely attempts at viral (or not-so-viral) marketing campaigns.
2. When a “friend-collector” begins following me, I’m obligated to follow-back, even if they don’t care what I have to say and are only trying to boost their follow stats or get me to read their ideas without interacting on mine.
Those are both ridiculous extremes, but they should illustrate the point. Follow-backs that aren’t mutually beneficial shouldn’t be implemented. It’s that simple.
So, in an ideal world where everyone is mutually engaged in discourse and conversation, I’d agree with the author’s sentiment, entirely. And those who make an attempt at mutuality are welcome to participate with Twitter in this manner. But unfortunately, not all of us live there. And be that as it may, there are plenty of people who I don’t really care to engage with, and I’m not going to add them simply because they’re following me.
Here’s my own little algorithm for who I follow:
If I A)Know You B)Like your ideas
I follow you or follow-back if you began following me.
But if I A)Don’t know you B)Don’t like or care about your ideas
I do not follow you or follow-back- no matter how many times you call me a snob. You see, from my perspective, it’s not being a snob to follow people you know and care about and to avoid those you don’t- It’s simply time well spent. After all, I don't have time to follow everyone. It's not humanly possible. So I engage with those I care about and I let the rest engage with someone else!
I finally finished watching 'No Country For Old Men' the other day.
Like many of the other Coen Brothers' films No Country played with the themes of fate and free will and I especially enjoyed the end of the film when Carla Jean tells Chigurh that the decision to kill is his alone- that the coin is not the deciding factor.
If you've seen the film I'd love to hear your thoughts on:
Whether the random accident at the end is symbolic of anything? Is Bell destined to die, even if he retires? What's up with Chigurh's coin toss?
Micah, Christopher, Jeff, and I have been having an excellent conversation surrounding Nietzsche, Progressives, Irony, and the Kingdom of God. I loved Micah's articulation of this idea which you should read over on his blog: End of History and Kingdom Come (parts 1-4).
Chris & Jeff had their own questions/comments, while mine were regarding Terry Eagleton's book which outlines that the New Atheists, Humanists, and Progressives are certain of humanity's ability to rise above oppression, poverty, and violence through legislation or cooperation. I've been involved in a spiritual community that's been heavily focused on social justice- they call it "Bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth" and I thought that our own doctrine was eerily similar to this humanist approach to social justice.
Now, don't get me wrong- I strongly believe that we should continue these efforts. My community (and my heart as an extension) is set on making the world a better place and I think that's a good thing- an important thing. Jesus almost always met immediate physical, emotional, or relational needs before moving onto spiritual needs. But we also need to come to terms with the fact that there's a problem in the world that's not going to simply go away with a lot of hard work and cooperation- there's a soul problem. A sin problem.
Poverty is caused by sin. Violence is caused by sin.
We, as Christ-followers need to help the victims of poverty and violence, sure, but we also need to address the root issue- that the hearts of men are set against God and against each other. Until hearts change, the poor will always be among us and war will always be a reality. And as much as it pains us to admit it, heart change is something beyond the scope of human accomplishment. We can't really do in our own strength. There's no amount of Human Progress that will clear the way for men to let go of hate and fear.
Only God provides the sort of kindness that leads to repentance.
God alone can usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet, He’s allowed us to be a part of the process. And when we participate, we get to know God better and we get to be with God. That’s why it’s so important for us to engage in social justice and heart change. As Jeff mentioned: “I’m supposed to work to bring about God’s kingdom not because God needs me but because I need God.”
There were two men, living on the same street who became fathers within a short timespan of each other.
The first man was wealthy and did everything he could to make life seamless for his son. He gave him all the latest toys and gadgets. He donated large sums of money to his schooling so that his son would have access to the top programs. When his son graduated, he worked his network of colleagues to make sure his son landed a great job. At one point, his son lost his job when the economy went south, and the father paid off every debt and lavished money on his son to make sure his unemployment period would be as painless as possible. Soon, the boy found work again and life went on as usual.
The second man was not well off, like the first man. He couldn't afford to give his son as much, but he worked hard to make ends meet and spent as much time as he could with his boy. He couldn't afford to send his son to the best schools, but he encouraged his son to get the best grades possible and spent every evening helping him with his studies. He didn't have the same sort of connections, but he encouraged his son to make calls and contacts of his own and applauded him found a job and encouraged him to work hard. When the economy went south, his son was also laid off, but he didn't have any money to pay off his son's debts. So he took his son to the bank and they worked out a plan with one of the loan officers that would help his son avoid credit problems, while giving him the flexibility to look for more work.
Both of these fathers loved their sons very much.
But one day... tragedy stuck. An earthquake destroyed the street that both men lived on and they both perished.
Which of the two sons was more prepared for life after the passing of their fathers?
Today, I'm being featured again on Weebly's main site which is a big honor for me. The Weebly Team has been fantastic and have created an amazing product that's basically free and very easy to use. Make sure you check out Weebly if you haven't yet.
That said, if you’re new to this site today, you might want to check out who I am and read through some of my blogs to get a better idea of what this is all about.
Some of my favorite posts (and collections) include:
And if you’re the creative type, I’d really love to have you participate in the weekly banner design contest I just began for my site. Each week, I pick one banner from the designs that have been submitted and give lots of “link love” to the creator. I welcome submissions from any of my readers!
If you like what you read here- please check out some of the other sites on my blogroll- especially Micah Tillman, Christopher Cocca, Seth Wright, and Matt Addington. I wouldn’t be the writer I am without reading the thoughts and ideas of others, so do me a favor and head over to their sites, too!
Today I'm going to post a slightly embarrassing revelation about myself:
When I'm around someone (especially other men) that I feel the need to impress, my voice gets higher.
It's a nervous tick, I'm sure, but it's a dead giveaway that I'm feeling intimidated or unsure of myself. I noticed it a few years ago, but this week it's been more obvious than usual because my new boss has a voice with a particularly low register- quite a bit lower than mine to begin with- and this makes my own nervous intonation all the more obvious to me.
But, I wonder if this is actually something bigger than mere nervousness?
I ask this because as I've had the opportunity to experience and interact with different cultures, I've found a common denominator of respectful positioning seems to permeate them all. What I mean is that each culture has some sort of respect tradition that gives those with experience or skill a visible indicator of honor. Some are a bit more obvious- like bowing or shrinking down to make the honored more prominent. Others are a bit more subtle- like deferring to the senior person's judgment or waiting for the honored person to respond to a question or action before making one’s own response. But whether they are minimal gestures or grand posturing, each culture has some sort of honor that they bestow on those who are seen to be experienced or skilled or respected.
I think that this idea of honor and respect is wired into all of us, as humans.
Of course Westerners would like to think that this sort of thing is behind us- that we've outgrown these sort of positioning games- but I really doubt that we can ever put something that's so fully tied to humanity completely behind us. Even as we thwart the more visible respect cues, subtle and subconscious ones inevitable take their place. So, I’ve decided that this is what my voice change is all about. I think it’s anthropologically aligned with the ideas of honor and respect rather than a mere nervous tick.
Here’s why:
Consider the differences between men and boys. There are many, of course- strength, hair, muscles, and sexual maturity (among other things). One very obvious difference is the tonality of a man's voice versus a boy's. The deeper, booming voice is an indicator that a boy is growing up- that he is coming of age. It’s one indicator that we are becoming "manly" rather than “boyish.” Boys who haven't hit puberty yet have much higher voices than men, more feminine voices like their mothers, and so this change is an powerful indicator of identity. They are becoming more like their fathers- they are becoming men.
I can remember very clearly the first day back in school after the summer between fifth and sixth grade. Everyone remarked that my voice had changed. Of course, I hadn’t noticed until then. For me it was a gradual thing that happened over the duration of summer break- I didn't even have the cracking voice. But my friends hadn’t seen me in three months and so they picked up on it immediately.
It made me feel special! I felt like I was more mature and grown up than they were since most of them were still still singing alto in concert choir.
If I take my own experience of growing up and couple it with the idea of cultural respect traditions, I’m going to make a leap and assert this: When I’m around men that I’m impressed with, a subconscious indicator is triggered, signaling my body and my heart that I feel immature or less important than the person I’m speaking with. And if I'm somehow less of a man than this other fellow, I take on a subtle, more "boyish" tone, indicating that the other man is more mature, more manly, more respected.
I believe that this has less to do with nervousness and more to do with the fact that in Western societies, we've tried to cut ties with visual respect signals and are now bound to subconsciousness ones.
Anyhow, as embarrassing as it may be for me to reveal this about myself, at least you've now got a good measuring stick for how comfortable I feel around you. If I'm speaking to you in a high tenor tone rather than baritone- you can be sure that I find you a bit intimidating…
This is going to be a difficult post/topic to write about without offending everyone.
So, I'm going to ask a question up front so that you'll participate in this thought experiment with me rather than have this post sound like a crazed attack on entitlements and programs that seem geared toward progress and empathy:
Since we can't continue to run a budget deficit indefinitely, what are some areas of government that we could/should cut back on or say farewell to (either permanently or temporarily until the economy improves)?
This question goes out to all political affiliations, not just Libertarians who are in favor of cutting just about every federal program there is...
Here are my top two, I'd love to hear yours as well.
1. War At a trillion dollar price tag, so far, our efforts in Iraq (in particular) have become some of the most costly in the history of the world. So whether you believe our presence in Iraq is justified or not, we can't afford it any longer and we need to pull much of our resources out of that area before we find ourselves in Vietnam, the sequel.
2. The Space Program If you recall from my previous post, I really do like the space program. I like Cable TV and Internet access, too- but they are obviously expenses that I could do without in my own home when finances get tight. Although there are a lot of scientific advancements and excitement surrounding the Space Program, it's not imperitive to our success as a country. So, I'd cut back (at the very least).
