GOODNESS, I haven't posted since February 11th. I just realized that was before Valentine's Day (when I started reading) and I feel Les Misérables deserves a place here even though I never got the chance to blog. I'm sure it will (re-)spark a lot of interesting material the second time I read it (this summer?), and when I have more time. Anyway, phenomenal book, Victor Hugo is one of my new favorite people ever. And the musical is great too.
I've been thinking about judgmentalism recently and here are my ideas: God says the judgement is His, and I am agreed. But there's no doubt there is some practicality in judging people in our walks here on earth - whether it be a friend in need of intervention, or character in a mate, or the charming man driving the big white van with no windows and some tasty candy. The fact is, oftentimes our very means of being better come through the inspiration of other people, and sometimes that inspiration comes with a little prodding, and I really believe that comes indirectly from God. So - we must not be ignorant or blind; that is impractical. It's important to recognize and point out sin in order to combat it.
Except I just said it's important to recognize sin. My problems in seeing judgmentalism come when standards aren't of morality but are of things such as popularity or intelligence or fashion sense or personal-annoyance-factor or taste in music. What an absolute waste of time. This irritates me the most when it comes from Christians - have you not decided, in your salvation, that ultimately the value of a life resides in its goodness? Is that not the very foundation of the word 'better'? To be more good?
Of course, people are made up of more than just their goodness and badness. Human relations involve many, many different things - popularity and intelligence and music taste and everything. So, sure, the basis of our interactions with people can involve these sorts of judgements. If I know that the carpool driver for Monday is in love with the Dixie Chicks, maybe Mondays I'll drive myself. If I can't stand the vocals of a band, I think it's fair not to buy the singer's solo album. This is reasonable.
What bothers me is seeing a life deemed worthless, deemed not worth our time or efforts or attention, or an attitude of apathy or indifference directed towards a person. It's interesting having the spectrum of friends I do - I see people rendered not worth a person's time on the basis of both 'lameness' and lack of intellect, of athletic ability or an exhibited lack of cleverness or grammatical intelligence. I think my biggest problem, personally, is when it comes to what I consider arrogance, a result I'm sure of my own.
It's easy to make excuses as to the reasons behind disliking people, or the nature of the judgment itself, or whatever it may be, and it is easy to deem some judgements more valid or more humane or less sinful than others. Whatever the case, I find that usually the excuses are entirely invalid and stem from biases of our own (based in the standards by which we view people and ourselves), and even if they are not they needn't be considered. We really should just like people.
Here are tidbits that never really formed into more than just s-o-c thoughts and spent a lot of time being part of an unpublished draft:
What bothers me is seeing a life deemed worthless, deemed not worth our time or efforts or attention, or an attitude of apathy or indifference directed towards a person. It's interesting having the spectrum of friends I do - I see people rendered not worth a person's time on the basis of both 'lameness' and lack of intellect, of athletic ability or an exhibited lack of cleverness or grammatical intelligence. I think my biggest problem, personally, is when it comes to what I consider arrogance, a result I'm sure of my own.
It's easy to make excuses as to the reasons behind disliking people, or the nature of the judgment itself, or whatever it may be, and it is easy to deem some judgements more valid or more humane or less sinful than others. Whatever the case, I find that usually the excuses are entirely invalid and stem from biases of our own (based in the standards by which we view people and ourselves), and even if they are not they needn't be considered. We really should just like people.
Here are tidbits that never really formed into more than just s-o-c thoughts and spent a lot of time being part of an unpublished draft:
I'd like to tell all of the elitist indie-type crowd that true authenticity (I'd like to say genuinity but that's not a word) never comes with deliberation or derision. But I won't, for fear of becoming one of those people. Haha. Conformists are people too. (Cred to Sal.)
Nonconformity. I think that there will always be (maybe what I mean here is that in our society there is) a majority and a certain average we can stand ourselves up against, however much of a fantastic collective creation it is - it only exists because we continue to use it and refer to it and in effect continue its existence - there is always a standard citizen to which we are adding traits - be they 'sexual promiscuity' or 'passivity' or 'ignorance' - but it is unfair to accuse individuals of the society of 'conforming' to this standard. I might see this standard as at the center of 'society'; society isn't moving toward it, it's simply what society is moving toward. That is what gives it its existence. Individuals are drawn towards it perhaps because that is where they are born, because of its position. I think I might be contradicting myself. It's all so abstract. It's all just what we want it to be, or what we decide it is.
I'll grant the standard its alleged existence (though its existence is indisputable, valid or not, because we continue to recognize it) for the purposes of discussion: I believe that when a group of people gets together there is no avoiding the formation of some sort of common-ness. Connections must be made, bridges forged, some sort of comradeship formed, for the sake of the group's survival, and the group itself is formed for the sake of the individual, whose well-being is (or at least has become, in humans) contingent on group formation. We like being together, and now, after centuries, it is found that life sucks when we try to fight that.
Summer has begun, oh joy! (It reached 100º today, not so much joy.) School is out and I'm going to IIT come fall for those of you that read this and don't know. IB is over (thank the Lord), besides the pain it will probably inflict come score release in July, and I'm so happy to be getting back in the pool every day all the time and regaining my health in more ways than one. I should stop talking about me. Though I'll finally have money and will be able to buy all the cds on my list, YES! And books too. Good deal.
Currently reading:
Harry Potter y la Cámara Secreta (I'm finally having the time to get some Spanish back into my brain.)
The Count of Monte-Cristo, Alexandre Dumas (or will be soon, at least - thanks Hahee)
Currently listening to:
oh, gosh, I've been all over the place -
Copeland
New Amsterdams
Dear and the Headlights
Relient K
Melee
Nonconformity. I think that there will always be (maybe what I mean here is that in our society there is) a majority and a certain average we can stand ourselves up against, however much of a fantastic collective creation it is - it only exists because we continue to use it and refer to it and in effect continue its existence - there is always a standard citizen to which we are adding traits - be they 'sexual promiscuity' or 'passivity' or 'ignorance' - but it is unfair to accuse individuals of the society of 'conforming' to this standard. I might see this standard as at the center of 'society'; society isn't moving toward it, it's simply what society is moving toward. That is what gives it its existence. Individuals are drawn towards it perhaps because that is where they are born, because of its position. I think I might be contradicting myself. It's all so abstract. It's all just what we want it to be, or what we decide it is.
I'll grant the standard its alleged existence (though its existence is indisputable, valid or not, because we continue to recognize it) for the purposes of discussion: I believe that when a group of people gets together there is no avoiding the formation of some sort of common-ness. Connections must be made, bridges forged, some sort of comradeship formed, for the sake of the group's survival, and the group itself is formed for the sake of the individual, whose well-being is (or at least has become, in humans) contingent on group formation. We like being together, and now, after centuries, it is found that life sucks when we try to fight that.
Summer has begun, oh joy! (It reached 100º today, not so much joy.) School is out and I'm going to IIT come fall for those of you that read this and don't know. IB is over (thank the Lord), besides the pain it will probably inflict come score release in July, and I'm so happy to be getting back in the pool every day all the time and regaining my health in more ways than one. I should stop talking about me. Though I'll finally have money and will be able to buy all the cds on my list, YES! And books too. Good deal.
Currently reading:
Harry Potter y la Cámara Secreta (I'm finally having the time to get some Spanish back into my brain.)
The Count of Monte-Cristo, Alexandre Dumas (or will be soon, at least - thanks Hahee)
Currently listening to:
oh, gosh, I've been all over the place -
Copeland
New Amsterdams
Dear and the Headlights
Relient K
Melee
