Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Neapolitan Perspective

I’m awash in uniqueness. I feel large and change wielding. I’m girded in the illusion of individuality. I remember who I am, powerful nostalgia of self, and know again that I am capable of enacting change.

Another’s embrace assures position. Self embrace emphasizes positive hope of transition. There is no fear of change when you are up on your board riding the world around you. This footing is secure, not in stability in relation to surroundings but, more hopefully, in relation to becoming. This is the joy of Sunday drives and evening walks.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Biblical Veracity

“Is the Bible Real?”
The veracity of the Bible is an interesting question. Not as much for the answer but for the way the answers are made and supported. When approaching a personal view on this question I suggest that the thinking person avoid an emphatic positive or negative response. In wrestling with this question the most likely danger to a genuine response will be short cuts to thinking; childhood maxims and ultimatums. I encourage the Christian believer to take this question seriously enough to actually come to a considered response. It will be worth the time; this is a foundational concept in Christian conversation.

“What type of document is the Bible?”
The way you answer the question will depend heavily on what type of document you consider the Bible to be. Historical: you will use archeology and literary references for support. Legal: you will use moral authority and point to a divine author. Instructive: you will use the evidence that following the text will lead to the promised results. These all could be used to support or refute its veracity, but such divergent conceptions of veracity have little commerce.

“A stepped approach to honest dialog”
When discussing biblical veracity I suggest you establish document type before you begin discussing veracity. No meaningful discussion on veracity can occur when the participants diverge on document type; this must be agreed upon first. Some zealous individuals will assert all three document types; my suggestion to this person would be to establish what type of document his partner in discussion is addressing and to adjust his discussion accordingly. Jumping around between support for this type and then that type will not lead to a good discussion but an attempt to bully or bludgeon agreement or at least acquiescence out of the other party. Don’t be afraid to have these healthy considered conversations; this can be honest dialog between two people of different opinion.

Monday, March 14, 2005

Immaculate Conception

Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, were the sons of the god of war, Mars, and Rhea Silvia the Vestal Virgin. The product of this Immaculate Conception, Romulus, founded a city on a hill and was its first King. At death he was taken into heaven by his father Mars and worshipped by his descendants who called themselves the sons of god.

Some time after his death and ascension a patrician swore that he had met Romulus on a road and that he had told him, “It was the pleasure of the gods, from whom I came, that I should dwell again in heaven. Tell my people that if they practice self-restraint, and add courage to it, they will reach the utmost heights. And I will be their encouraging god.”

Psychological Shelter

Maslow's hierarchy of needs reserves no position for the drive to psychologically escape reality. Does this fall under the need for shelter? If so, then shelter from what? I suggest that escape is psychological shelter from the desperate vocation of self actualization.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005


Honest wisdom lies in the ability to change your opinion on matters you consider important. True wisdom lies in changing which matters you consider important.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Discussion Question

What is the "good life"? How much of your answer to this question is based solely off of your individual uniqueness and how much on what you've been taught you should answer?

Symptom: Vocabulary Change

An observable symptom of progressive indoctrination is a pronounced vocabulary change. There will initially be a hesitancy to use specialized language; this will be marked by an infrequent and limited introduction of key phrases into a subject’s normal language patterns. There will be a full adoption of key phrases once the individual’s self image has aligned with the image of the indoctrinating group. I suggest that the adoption of language patterns and phrases is an external symptom of the candidate’s internal progression into the social group.

The adoption of new ideas without a complete understanding is often exhibited by a heavy use of genre specific terms and speech patterns heavily laden with genre specific language constructs. This coupled with the candidate’s inability to discuss outside of these language patterns as well as a typically defensive response when any of the tenet ideas are challenged or even asked to be explained is a clear sign that the individual is an acolyte of a non-reproducible progression of knowledge.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

My Accent

While riding in the back of a vietnam era military truck outfitted to haul soliders, a canadian couple told me that their son would love to talk to me just so he could hear my Texas accent. Much of this was shouted so it could be heard over the wind: there's less accent when shouting. While our mercedes military truck bounced over wind sand roads I tried to accept that I had an accent - something I'd never really considered myself to have.

I wasn't aware that I had enough of an accent that it would be entertaining. My impression of my own verbal style is basically american with some small southern or Texan influences; apparently I'm simply not aware of my own accent.

What other aspects of my person are similiarly affected by my geospatial reality? Does my belief system have an accent? Is it Texan? When I'm communicating my understandings is there a distinct accent to my truth? Is it economic? Are Texans really friendlier than our Yankee counterparts and if so is this an example of a non-verbal accent: A personality accent.

I wasn't aware of how much accent my voice carried. I wonder how many other accents I carry that I'm unaware of.


“If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few; by resignation, none.” Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)

I want to participate in this democracy, but find no way to act besides voting for representatives that do not clearly represent any position, except the desire to be elected by the population.

Am I expected to take this situation as a serious opportunity to participate? Legislative authority needs to be redistributed. I want the option to represent myself or choose someone to represent me; anyone of my choosing that I feel can represent my interests better than I can. I'm serious about this, I want to be able to choose my own representative not merely choose between preselected alternatives. The freedom to choose is embodied in the write in candidate and our almost complete lack of freedom is embodied in the radio button. I want to be able to write in a name and have my chosen individual represent me. My candidate should always get elected! He should always win the opportunity to represent me.

Maybe the current system was the best that modes of communication and transportation allowed two hundred years ago, but the physical limitations of the past have become entrenched interests of the career politicians of the present. We need to reorganize the system to benefit from advances in communication and transportation. Why must legislators sit in a room together and sign paper? Why must the role of legislator be a paid position held by a few? The role of legislation should be the role of a citizen. Any citizen capable of using a computer and proving sufficient ability and knowledge in the subjects dealt with should be free and empowered to participate in the proposal and ratifying of legislation.

“Of the people, for the people and by the people”, we can make this more true. We can distribute legislative authority to a greater part of our population, so that those who want to participate actually can.

This sounds nice, yes, but you doubt it will come about. What is the motivation of those in power to share their power? Why would these career politicians give up the professions they’ve invested in and profit from? They will give up their power only if we take it from them with the threat of force. That is how we gained and paid for the system we currently have, and that is how we will advance this very same system; popular support, coupled with the support of those principled individuals currently in power.

I want to participate, but I do not want a new profession. I want to be a citizen that can participate in the democracy he belongs to. The answer to my desire is the reason why we are disenfranchised as a nation.