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

Happy New Year! I have too many topics to have a proper title.

So, just an update: I am doing a horrible job at this whole 'only fight for love' deal. Still working on it.



It seems the world currently has an exceptionally skewed perception of what happiness is. You ask someone to define happiness and one person will say "feeling good", and another will say "being content", another "the opposite of depressed". Not to mention the ambiguity that is found in each of these statements.

To me, happiness is more than just contentedness or pleasure and is not a result of circumstances but rather an ability to go beyond or overcome them, if necessary. Happiness is rooted in God - and I say rooted because God is stability, God is my rock. No matter what is happening in the world - great or catastrophic - happiness is the ability to pick yourself up (or take yourself down a notch), dust off, and be all right; the ability to live life - with a smile (if necessary), laughing when something's funny, not bringing other people down. And that ability comes only when a person is rooted in something that stays, when someone has a foundation. Logically, the most trustworthy thing to be rooted in is God, because He is the only thing that is indubitably (Say that aloud. It's fun.), perpetually stable.

One last comment: Being elated and on-top-of-the-world all the time is not my kind of happiness. Happiness requires, I think, an ability to recognize suffering and overall the ability to overcome it, and therefore the ability to recognize grace.

Thanks to Sal for helping me work out these ideas, and being the mastermind behind many of them. Credit to her.



Christmas shouldn't be so stressful. I think it's an important and invaluable skill to be able to forget about the stress and focus on the miracle. Not that this hasn't been said before.
My mom's iPod was stolen on Christmas Eve out of her car in the church parking lot. Ouch.



I've heard often before that imperfections are what make people who they are, that imperfections are the reasons we love them sometimes. I do not love people because of their imperfections. People have imperfections and I love them. How absurd to say I would love someone because of their imperfections, flaws. They are flaws! That's a bad thing! And to be able to recognize the severity (that is, the level of severity) of these flaws is to recognize the absolute greatness of grace.

First of all, I think there are two kinds of flaws. (I split them up only for the sake of this blog and clarity, I suppose - in reality it's very hard to label all flaws and depends on situations and specificity rather than generalities. I hope not to eat my words. I often do.) There is flaws(1): Those that are generally trivial and really just nuisances. And flaws(2): Those that keep us away from God - these are sins. Maybe more on this another time. I leave it up to your imagination for now.

Many seem to want to believe that people are defined by their flaws, that flaws give us our identities, that flaws are what make up who we are. I disagree. Pehaps, maybe, flaws(1). But I think that it is not so much our flaws that make up who we are but rather how we deal with them - negatively or positively. The kleptomaniac that doesn't steal certainly doesn't deserve to go to jail, and rather should be commended. Also, isn't it entirely unfair to neglect strengths? Certainly strengths make up a great deal more of who we are than do flaws.

I really, as a person, don't want to be defined by my flaws, and don't understand why anyone would. It seems almost as if it was meant as some sort of sick comfort to the first person who came up with the idea that we are defined by flaws - "Don't worry, nobody is perfect. You're not perfect either; that's why I love you. (Maybe, a little bit, it makes me feel better about myself.)" I might not be making any sense, or maybe I'm just being mean and cynical. I believe wholeheartedly, though, that two people can have all the same flaws, or have no flaws at all, and still be entirely individual.



I used to think that if something was meant to be, there was nothing we could do to keep it from happening. Forestall - certainly, but, inevitably, as it was meant to be, it would be. I do not believe that anymore. I'm not entirely sure what made me believe it in the first place. One part wishful thinking, one part trust in authority, one part naivete probably. There is no 'meant to be'. Things that end up well do so by chance or because God played a very big role. I am noticing (and adoring) lately God's awesome ability to make something good out of something humans have screwed up - He has turned a horrible mistake into something incredible and augmented, can make terrible falters into absolute beauty, fatal and seemingly trivial miss-steps into invaluable experience and the utmost evil into something wonderful, or into the most heartfelt contrition. Things aren't meant-to-be. Humans screw up perfect opportunities and situations all the time. The miracle is that God can fix it, or that God can give you another perfect opportunity, or that God can make your biggest mistake into something that saves your life - and ten (or ten million) others' as well.


A little familial promotion: Check out Country Mouse, my brother's and cousin's and sister's boyfriend's band. I like them a lot and experienced recently the fact that they're way better live than on their myspace right now. Whoo!


In other words, you'll be happy to know that I've watched my two favorite movies (The Bourne Ultimatum and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) each at least five times now. I got them for Christmas, along with a new camera. But that's an old picture (above).

Anyway, merry Christmas and happy New Year!



Currently reading: The Bourne Ultimatum, Robert Ludlum

Currently listening to: Country Mouse, The Classic Crime, Dear and the Headlights