I'm back: judgmentalism and nonconformity and Les Misérables.

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:

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

Monica's a jerk: loving, Invisible Children, NotW, going places.

Here's what I think:
It is not our job to make others unhappy. In fact, our job is quite the opposite. We are sent here not to be troublesome, not to pick at minor flaws, not to be unnecessarily bitter and mean; rather, we are put here to be more understanding, loving - to act in such prophetic empathy that we indicate Christ's life itself. We are human. We are sinners. Under that 'bitch's' or that 'asshole's' circumstances - with her upbringing, childhood, mental illness, heartache, genetic make-up, scars, everything - you would have done exactly the same thing. There is no special part of your soul that makes you more likely to do the right thing; there is no 'spark' in you that makes you good and other people bad. There is nothing about you - raw, stripped-down, bare you - that makes you better than any other person. If you do the right thing, it's because God has blessed you with the discretion and the motivation - a result of many things, an upbringing or a strong conscience or whatever. And when you do the wrong thing - because inevitably you do - it is not any bit excusable for the reason that you do the right thing most of the time, or do the right thing more than others do - or for the reason that you think you had justification or are somehow unique in a way most other people aren't.

This humility, combined with a love of God, should motivate us to love other people. Not to judge them, or be continually annoyed by them, or idealize them, or to think they're stupid, but to love them. Loving people does not equal talking behind their backs or acting mean or making snide remarks or calling them stupid or judging them, ever.

How do we forget so easily that we are to love?
If you're so convinced they are wrong (Bill and Ann), if you are so intent on changing them, you should remember that you're not going to change people if you don't love them. That's just not the way it works.
And there's not much point in it any other way.


It's occurred to me that you don't have to be going somewhere to be doing something worthwhile. As a senior in high school, I'm tired of 'going places'. I'm ready to settle down a bit, and start doing the things I want to do. Because, after all, I could die before I get old. And I want to have something done by then.

Which is not to say I'd like to stop making progress. On the contrary, I'd like to start. Because, you know, you can't make any progress when you're always working towards leaving the place you're in.

My little brother ordered some stuff off the Invisible Children website and it came in the mail today (and by today I mean somewhat recently - this post has been a draft for a while). (I love that kid. He definitely figured many things out much earlier than I ever did - he's twelve.)* What he bought was a t-shirt and bracelet. What he got was a t-shirt, bracelet, about four boxes, a DVD, lots of cardboard and foam, some pieces of paper about what he bought and about some more stuff, and also lots of cool colors and stuff. The excessive use of the word 'stuff' in this paragraph (count: 4, I think) was unintentional, but I think it provides an accurate implication as to the thematic focus on 'stuff' here. The Invisible Children organization has sure got it right. When I send my money to them, I really just want stuff. I might act as if I'm trusting them to give my money to people in Uganda that need it, but that's just a fallacy because what I really, really, deep-down-inside want is some nice, squishy non-biodegradable packaging material. And (I'm speaking to the people who run Invisible Children here) make sure you hire at least one more designer because you decorated the DVD case (note the use of a box! Not even just a DVD slip like NetFlix uses!) just fine but the outside of the box was just a little dry for my taste - try some more color!

Ultimately, though, Invisible Children people, I'm impressed with you. You're doing a fine job. I really respect all the money you put into production and salaries and stuff. You even put an extra piece of cardboard around the DVD box in case it fell open or something. That, on top of all the styrofoam - you can never be too careful! And here's the kicker - I went to your website, to check out your financials, and nobody will ever guess what I found. More colors and neat designs and emotionally swaying pictures and stuff!! Right there, on the annual report. So, thank you. I really feel, here, that I have "become part of the story".

Interesting to me that an organization cannot motivate our society to give money to a people without any without exploiting our flashing-lights, smoke-and-mirrors materialism - they have to make cool videos and provide the option of neat clothes and make it attractive to lure us in. I'm disgusted by all parties. Myself included and above all.

(I understand that this was unnecessarily caustic. Invisible Children, I really don't hate you, I promise.)

*Placing groups of parenthesis right exactly next to each other except for a measly period and space is the new cool, if you didn't know.


Speaking of materialism, who knows the brand Not of This World? This is a brand marked by the fashions of the time - trendy, changing, tight - with a Christian message. I don't really have anything against this brand or anything, but it kind of bothered me when I noticed that its chosen, official Bible verse is Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." What is this organization doing if not catering to the world? If not trying dearly for manipulative persuasion? - "Christians can be cool, too! You don't have to be unpopular to be a Christian. Look! I believe in Jesus and belong to the world, and am desperately clinging to this fallen nation."



I am an idiot. I just had one of the most humbling experiences of my life. I am an idiot. I got done writing the bit on Invisible Children, and then went back and read my bit on loving at the beginning of the post, and what a punch in the gut. I am such an idiot. I think I'm gonna publish this anyway, just so everyone knows what a jerk I am.


Currently reading:
the Bible
Death of a Salesman (or, rather, should be reading - it's for school)
the latest issue of PopSci, yay!
nothing. :(

Currently listening to:
Jon Foreman (guess what: his song, "White as Snow" -> Psalm 51)
Wavorly (guess what: their song, "Sleeper" -> Ephesians 5:14. I think.)
Something Corporate
Esterlyn

pride, running from God

I'm gonna articulate something in this post that feels to me to be universal to Christians, but realistically there's only one other person I know who might go through the same process. Tell me if I'm wrong please.

Every non-surface Christian (I realize I haven't yet explained what I mean by this, but hopefully I'll get the chance to soon -- if it helps, I've heard C.S. Lewis call surface Christians semi-Christians), I suppose, has an individual way of striving for the perfection God asks of us. The way I've done it in the past and the way I'm trying not to do it now is a prideful one. It says, "God, You have a lot to do anyway. I'll go ahead and try on my own. I don't feel comfortable asking for Your help when You've given me so much already." We must let go of the attitude in which we do it ourselves or we don't do it at all. It breaks everyone's heart. We (and by we I mean the people who do this, me included) spend so much time running the race with our shoes tied together, weights on our back, saying, "Watch me, God! I can do it myself, I'll finish, You don't have to help me." And then we fall flat on our faces, tasting dirt, anguish, despairing in our failure, and it is God who picks us up again, it is Him that embraces us in His loving arms and gets us back on our feet and tells us it's okay that we can't do it on our own, that we weren't made that way. And we thank Him, we are so grateful. He nurses us back to health and as He does confidence in ourselves rekindles and plants its seed. "I feel so much better," we tell ourselves. "I'll never make that mistake that tripped me up again. " And then, once again, we take off and leave God behind. What a childish, naive pride. Such a desire to please God and such an inability to do it, such an inability to realize we can't do it without Him. And then, inevitably, our humanity hits us square in the face. We can't do it. It is impossible. We are fallen and sinful and it is only the grace of God that allows us to do any pure good. And yet, we still do not accept God's help. There is no falling out, because how can there be in the face of this truth? We are tragically stubborn. We say, "Well, God, I'll do the best I can. I'm sorry it's so horrible."

Profoundly relevant songs:
When I Go Down, Relient K
Find Me Tonight, Everyday Sunday

I don't have much of substance left, but I can leave you with some food for thought. Those of you who know me most likely have heard me talk of C.S. Lewis (and actually I've talked of him here), and that is because I think he is absolutely amazing. This is an excerpt from a letter by C.S.L. found in a book called A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken:
My feeling about people in whose conversion I have been allowed to play a part is always mixed with awe and even fear: such as a boy might feel on first being allowed to fire a rifle. The disproportion between his puny finger on the trigger and the thunder & lightning wh. follow is alarming. And the seriousness with which the other party takes my words always raises the doubt whether I have taken them seriously enough myself. By writing the things I write, you see, one especially qualifies for being hereafter 'condemned out of one's own mouth'. Think of me as a fellow-patient in the same hospital who, having been admitted a little earlier, cd. give some advice.
Earlier, Vanauken speaks of Lewis (who was a close friend and mentor to him), saying:
...and I therefore saw and heard, both at table and at the semicircle by the fire in the common room as the port went round, the Lewis who, in brilliance, in wit, and in incisiveness, could hold his own with any man that ever lived.

C.S. Lewis played (and, myself as proof, plays) such a great (and personal) role in so many people's lives, but his very influence would have been rendered entirely useless and even very detrimental if he hadn't been able to (and, realistically, God hadn't given him the ability to) discover humility and realize his actually nonexistent role compared to that of God.


Current music:
Globes and Maps, Something Corporate
When I Go Down, Relient K
Find Me Tonight, Everyday Sunday
Take Me Out, Everyday Sunday
Apathy for Apologies, Everyday Sunday

Currently reading:
A Severe Mercy, Sheldon Vanauken

pride, music, love is real, tied to the flesh

Pride is an enormous subject with me. I'm gonna start with a definition. Ambgtr (maybe I should start using nicknames like companionableills -- I know I'd have fun with that) can attest for the semantics problems we've had because we didn't bother to give our personal definitions.

When I speak of pride (most often, at least, and when I'm speaking of it here), I'm referring to pride the sin. Pride the sin is believing that you are good without God. It's trying to be God without Him. It's attributing your talents or skills or hard work or whatever it may be to yourself, rather than to Him who gave them to you.
(It's horribly ludicrous, in other words.)

The Devil is the epitome of pride. He works with pride, through pride; he is pride. Pride is something I have really struggled with, and, to me, it is the root of all sin. A man is greedy because he wants more things, and he wants more things very often because he wants more than his neighbor, and he wants more than his neighbor because he believes himself to be the best. It gets more complex than that, but that is only one example.
In short, if we didn't believe ourselves above having God in complete control, then He would be in control. If He was in control, we wouldn't sin any longer.

So, um, that was an introduction to pride? I originally was going to say a lot about it but it's 12:22am three days later and I haven't finished my homework and this post is long enough anyway. Next post, probably.



This is a blog from the Andrew McMahon of Jack's Mannequin and Something Corporate, and it's what I want from my music. I am very, very picky. This might sound very cliche and not at all unique, but I look for music that is real and sometimes I have trouble finding it.
Music is a bit of heaven, and a powerful emotional device, and a means of motivation, and a method of catharsis, and whatever you want to take from it, really. It can be damaging. I am very careful with my music.



Sometimes I feel things in my chest and know that they're not necessarily lasting. It's not until I feel them in my gut that I know they're there for good. Those are the things that tug at my heartstrings. That's what is my core.

I was talking to someone I really look up to the other night and he expressed a feeling he had, before conversion, of emptiness. He felt it inside of him, physically. He'd spend time around strong Christians and sensed a core, stability that he was missing.
God is my rock.

All of this is such great evidence to me that we are truly tied to the flesh. I am not a materialist or empiricist and really, philosophically, often lean more towards idealism (I suppose technically I'm a dualist maybe?), but my faith tells me that our reality is, in fact, inherently real. I cannot prove this -- my TOK (theory of knowledge - a required class for the IB program) classmates, or at least the ones that discuss things with me, know what I mean. It is a matter of faith and so I take it to be true. God tells me that He made all things and they are good. I take that to mean that my body and the things around me and the world I live in are useful tools in knowing God, becoming closer to Him, loving Him and loving His people, and I believe that the things God put on this earth can be and are used by Him to reach us. Music, food, water. The question is, to what extent? I'm not actually going to get into this yet, though.



I'm sure we've all heard DesCartes's "Cogito ergo sum. [I think, therefore I am.]". (What a coincidence because after writing this I read this week's TOK chapter and it talked about this.) Love proves my existence to me the same way Descartes doubting proved his (he may doubt that everything is real, but there has to be a doubter and so, he exists). I love people, and so something is being loved. I can't technically prove the existence of that something, but someone is certainly acting upon that something, no matter how little basis for doing it that someone has. I guess this is part of what I was trying to say at the beginning of this post.

On a kind of irrelated (I'm gonna get way ahead of you all and point out to myself that this isn't a word) note, love (and, really, emotion in general, but I like talking about love) is much more real, philosophically, to me than anything else. In TOK we talk about the ways of knowing (emotion, language, perception, thought) and really, the only one I really trust is emotion. I won't go into why the others are generally very unreliable (maybe another time) but emotion is something, really, that is pretty reliably outside of ourselves. I'm getting myself kind of tied up here because all my ideas for the effects of emotion rely pretty much on perception or language, but for the most part emotion is not really part of us. Though we might have control over emotions, the very fact that we might want or have to have control over them indicates that they are separate ('outside', I think, is not the right word) or not of ourselves. Emotions uniquely make us act certain ways -- it's not like when I see a tree and so decide to walk around it (and so the tree made me do something), where I could very easily not walk around that tree. I made a conscious decision to walk around the tree. I didn't really have to, but I, myself, decided to and made me do it. Maybe, though, I was feeling particularly masochistic that day and so instead of walking around the tree I ran into it quite painfully, probably. If I didn't have those bad feelings of myself, that emotion, I'm sure I would have avoided that tree. Or maybe I was feeling bad about myself but I thought about it and realized that walking into a tree was an awfully ridiculous thing to do, so I went around it. My point is, I still thought about it. If I didn't have that emotion, I wouldn't have given it a second thought at all. I would have walked around the tree because that's generally what common sense would have me do. But when I have this emotion, it requires some thought or control to walk around the tree when I otherwise would do it automatically.

All I'm really trying to say here is that emotion is pretty reliably (not provably [haha! didn't think that was a word], I know) not of ourselves. (But this is a ridiculously knotted argument because it may in fact rely entirely on perception [that is, sense-data, for those of you who read the TOK book]. How sad.)

This is not to say that emotion is always correct (not the word I want, really) though. Example: Once, I had a dream that somebody I knew did something really, really stupid and irritating. I woke up mad at him, and couldn't shake that anger for about a day and a half. I even talked to him about it. Completely unbased (what is that red squiggly line doing there?!) emotion.


Maybe, though, I'm mistakenly considering 'perception' as a way of knowing (which, to me, mostly includes language) and our 'sense-data' (we have sensations of color, texture, heaviness -- the color, texture, weight itself is a sense-datum) to be the same thing.
Well shooot. That switches things around a lot, I guess.


So I went maybe a little wikipedia/link crazy on this one. Maybe not. I also have discovered that my vocabulary sucks. In the normal sense but also in the I've-got-to-stop-making-up-words sense.
This is one of my more rambly (another red squiggly line :[ ), stream-of-consciousness posts and I'm going to apologize to and virtually pat on the back anyone who did me the favor of reading through it. Maybe not as high a substance-to-word ratio as desirable, but I'd still like to hear what you have to say.

Currently reading:
Catch-22, Joseph Heller

Current music:
Between the Trees
Notre-Dame soundtrack
First Time, by Lifehouse
Twenty-Four, Switchfoot
Globes and Maps, Something Corporate