Parallel Minds

Sign of the Times

2008-01-13T18:32:00.000-08:00

I'd like you to imagine the following scenario: Quicksilver sky, immediately after a short downpour. Sun is breaking through the clouds, spraying shafts of light across the sky in all directions. The radio is on, and a dude is sitting there, chilling out in his ride, listening to his favorite program, watching the sky, and just in general really enjoying the moment. Suddenly, from across the street, a woman approaches. She looks angry, and apprehensive -- definitely a buzzkill. She accosts the dude, tells him to get lost, "please". Dude takes a look around, nods, and bounces.

Why?

It has to do with what the dude saw. So what did he see? Kids' playthings, in the yard.

Still don't get it?

Thing is, the woman is the kids' mother. Dude is sitting in his car, listening to the radio, enjoying his program and the weather, out in front of HER house.

Ahhhhhh...now, see, you're starting to understand. You realized, just like the dude figured out belatedly, that the woman was worried for her kids. Dude could be some kind of serial kid rapist kidnapper, sitting outside waiting to steal her kids. You just never know.

The real reason why the dude was there was far less sinister -- he and his wife were attending a garden party down the street. His wife needed something from the car, and on the way there, it started to rain. He hopped in the car to wait out the rain, and to pass the time, turned on the radio. The rest just kind of happened. He didn't notice the toys, wasn't even thinking along those lines. He was just enjoying the moment.

And that's the sign. In a day and age where the most logical assumption to make -- that the dude chilling out listening to the radio, parked in the street in front of your house -- must be some kind of pervert psychopath, that's when you realize that your society is truly fucked up beyond all recognition.

'Cos I'll level with you -- I was that dude. And, I got off easy, no lie. The woman, with anxiety and resentment in her voice, told me to please go the hell away (politely). As soon as I realized why, I didn't blame her one bit. I left, promptly, without complaint. I have two kids of my own, and I totally understood her point of view.

Thing is, if I had been in her position, I don't think I'd have been anywhere near as nice...so I guess that makes my worldview just as messed up as everyone else, when it comes right down to it. I don't apologize for it, either. I catch some dude chillin' in his car listening to the radio for more than 30 seconds out in front of MY house, I'll freakin' kick his ass. Oh, and maybe call the cops, afterwards.

Sad, sad, sad.

Statement of Faith

2007-12-28T14:37:00.000-08:00

While browsing, I stumbled across some fundamentalist Christian's 'statement of faith' page, where the well-intentioned individual felt compelled to share with the rest of the world, in detail, how much of their higher brain functioning they had abandoned in the name of 'faith'.

Pathetic.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a committed Christian, and I really do believe there was a Jesus Christ, and there is a God, and that there's an afterlife.

BUT!

I also know a bit about carbon-dating, and literature, and the historical origins of the collection of texts that is presently called the 'Bible'. I can't discount the archaeological, biological, and genetic evidence that exists for evolution. I can't bring myself to accept that the arbitrarily-agreed-upon collection of apochrypha that is the Judeo-Christian holy book is completely without flaw. And I can't abide by the self-rightous posturing that excludes 'unbelievers' from the afterlife, just because they're not 'born again'. Puh-leeze.

So let's go point by point: Evolution vs. Creationism doesn't bother me. I don't think God literally created the earth in 518400 seconds as measured by a modern atomic clock (6 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds). God could have done it in 6 'days', whatever the heck that term means in the context of an omnipotent being. If you live outside of time (as God is suggested to do by Christians), just what the heck is a 'day' to you, anyway? And if you're omnipotent, why spend so MUCH time mucking about? Just do it and be done with it. And what's so bad about Evolution anyway? It takes a pretty damn smart designer to both realize that your creation needs to adapt to changing environments, and then actually implement that capability. Evolutionists hate 'intelligent design', Creationists hate 'evolution'. I say: "Why can't both be right? And ultimately, who cares? If God exists, why shouldn't He create whatever the heck He wants? And if God doesn't exist, what do the Evolutionists get out of the bargain -- nothing!" No big deal, I say. Nothing to get all hot under the collar about, on either side...

The 'inerrant Word of God'. Um, forgive me for my cynicism, but if it really WERE the inerrant word of God, why the heck did He have to have humans write it? I mean, seriously -- if He is capable of bringing an entire universe into being in just under a week, you'd think He could handle His own memoir. That's not to say I don't believe in 'inspiration'. I think God has His own way of speaking to people, and it's not typically a face-to-face thing. On the other hand, humanity is way more impressed with what they think God has to say about everybody else, and doesn't pay enough attention to the very good advice God has for their own circumstances. I mean really -- get your own house in order before you go tearing away at somebody else's. Anybody who disapproves of gay marriage should NEVER, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, marry somebody of their same gender. They should also SHUT THE FUCK UP about trying to cram their own morals and ethics down the throats of people who don't share their beliefs. Same goes for abortion, premarital sex, and anything else the fundamentalists find objectionable. Don't like it? DON'T DO IT. Let your life be your message; those who are interested in learning more will seek you out. Preach to them, then.

Being 'born again': Every fundamentalist Christian knows the Nicodemus story by heart -- how the Pharisee came to Jesus 'after hours' so none of his buddies in the Sanhedrin would give him a hard time about it, and quizzed Jesus about theology and philosophy. Jesus went straight for the jugular -- he deliberately set out to shock the theologian into paying attention to the message, instead of immediately writing Jesus' words off. "You must be born again, if you want to participate in the afterlife!" Jesus boldly claimed. Nicodemus was shocked. "You mean, I have to crawl back up my mother's vagina, hang out in her uterus for nine more months, after which I get squirted out a second time?" Um, no. Not quite. "You have abandon your current frame of reference, and re-examine salvation from the perspective of a child. Throw out all you think you know, and just trust that God has it covered. Anything more is too much, anything less is too little." That's the gist of the conversation. By that standard, I say anybody who's willing to make that leap of faith is saved, regardless of whether or not they've 'accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior'. If you believe that life extends beyond death, that God looks on the inner person and not the outer, and that He really does intend to save as many people as possible, why would He arbitrarily restrict things? I believe God asks all of us a simple question: Do you trust Me? If the answer is truthfully "Yes", then you're saved. The rest is just bonus material, for those who feel the obligation. Don't misunderstand me -- if you really DO accept Jesus as your 'personal savior', you've probably got the trust issue covered. But don't go damning the rest of the world, just 'cos you got your own shit together: Judge not, lest you be judged. God makes the rules, He saves who He feels like saving. Don't like it? Go to hell. Atheists -- sorry, that means you. Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, you're probably going to be okay. Wiccans, Pastafarians -- I dunno what happens in your cases, but hey, it's your life, you get to make your own decisions.

So here is my own 'statement of faith', and I hope it's a little less fatuous and simple-minded. The fact that I even believe in God will be enough to turn off the hard-core atheists; you can't please everybody, so whatever.

Statements of faith:

- I believe God exists.
- I believe He is responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it, either directly or indirectly.
- I believe He values and actively promotes the emergence of life, and of intelligence.
- I believe He actively engages in communication with intelligent individuals, and cares for them as individuals.
- I believe He is pleased when we choose to behave responsibly (in imitation of His own behavior), and that He is displeased when we refuse to acknowledge Him, behave irresponsibly, and actively or passively frustrate His goals or harm the people and things He values.
- I believe He accepts that humanity is flawed, and is willing to overlook (forgive) the inevitable mistakes we will make, so long as we are willing to admit our error, and accept responsibility for the consequences.
- I believe that eventually, everybody who's ever lived will have the opportunity to decide whether or not they trust God.
- I believe that eventually, everybody who decides to trust God will be rewarded by Him with an unlimited lifespan free from the cares and troubles that characterize our current mortal existence.
- I believe that eventually, everybody who decides not to trust God will be dealt with in as merciful as possible a way, such that they can't continue to frustrate God's goals, or harm the people and things He values.

Everything else is up for debate. Note, I said 'debate', not 'armed conflict'. All you militant fundamentalist Whatevers out there, back down, put the guns away. Surely you can find some other Whatever+1 folks out there to fight with, who'll be more than happy to exchange gunfire instead of ideas. Leave me out of it!

If God had wanted us to fight over Him, He'd have created (intelligently designed, evolved, whatever) a sword-bush, or a gun-fruit, or something. The fact that He chose not to, but gave us everything else we needed, is kind of a hint, in my opinion.

This Post is NOT About Work

2007-12-17T19:25:00.000-08:00

This is a fun post, about how life is good, and how great it is to be employed gainfully in a rewarding job, where the person you (dotted-line) report to doesn't call you up and shout at you some inane shit about you being unprofessional, have a bad attitude, are a lazy slacker, etc. There'll be none of that unpleasantness here. This is a HAPPY post. This is not the kind of post where some idiot pencil-pusher / professional voyeur / tattle-tale gathers ammunition with with to fire somebody's ass. You know who you are, there's the door, you'll find nothing of that sort here, by Gosh!

I mean, seriously. Who wants to read a post about that kind of tripe, especially when the person you really report to, and that person's boss as well, is telling you you're doing a good job? Where all the rest of the people you interact with (except dotted-line and his/her flunkies) seem genuinely happy to be working with you? No. Nobody wants to read that shit. Happy stuff. Fun stuff. That's what I'm talkin' bout!

So I'm really happy now. I have a great job, and my boss really seems to like me. My family is happy. We're doing great. If, for the sake of argument, there really WERE some inconsiderate jerk who, for the sake of some trivial issues that are not really legitimately your fault, called you up and raked you over the coals, why would you care? You shouldn't. Not if you have a happy family and a good job with great pay and benefits.

I mean, you're happy. You're having fun. You're sharing all the great things about your life with folks who like happy fun sharing about people's lives. You don't have time to worry about dotted-line. You're too busy having fun. I know I am. Right?

Right. Glad we had this chat, I really enjoyed sharing.

What? Hell no, this post is NOT a thinly-disguised rant about work. Where the heck did you get that from...?

November -- WTF??!

2007-12-17T19:24:00.000-08:00

Dude, sorry November, I totally blew you off in favor of work and family. Sucks, but that's how it goes sometimes. Catch you in '08, k?

Descriptions, Part 1

2007-10-26T04:08:00.000-07:00

Last night, on my way home from work, I saw the most amazing full moon I've ever seen. I'll attempt to capture it here, with these short descriptions.

"The full moon hung low in the evening sky, a bright hole punched through the veil of night, through which the daylight beyond flowed across the farmlands."

"Like the light at the end of a tunnel into day, the evening moon hung low and full over the fields."

"The moon's phosphorescent glow cut a neat round circle into the fabric of night. The fields below lay bathed in its soft white haze."

"Like a hole in the sky, the full evening moon shone brightly over the fields below. It seemed that at any moment, the livestock grazing peaceably below, even the quiet farmhouses, might suddenly be sucked up into it, and out into the dazzling brightness beyond."

Okay, that about covers it. Can you do a better one? I know you didn't see it for yourself, but taking my several attempts above, can you put together a single description that captures the essence of all of them? Give it a shot...post a comment or two with your attempts.

Birth Control for Kids

2007-10-23T16:48:00.000-07:00

So this school district decides that, with parental permission, it will start offering prescription birth control to its middle-school-age children. And the religious right goes incandescent with rage. Me, I say, "What's the big deal?" And, "Get a clue!" Because it makes sense. It's a DAMN GOOD IDEA (emphasis mine).

By now, if any of the self-righteous yet clueless conservative readers are still reading, they're thinking -- "Typical atheist liberal..." and are nearly ready to turn me off. If this describes you, WAIT! It's not what you think...hear me out, and then decide. If you think that you're not a clueless conservative, but still disagree with me, you probably ARE a clueless conservative, and just don't know it. HINT: That last sentence was a clue -- you don't have many, so treasure it. Moving right along...

Okay, a little background here. I'm a committed Christian (though NOT a fundamentalist), and am very much against pre-marital sex. I do not now, nor have I ever, thought it was a good idea for teens and pre-teens to have sex. Herein lies the contradiction, however.

I'm not senile, I remember being 14 years old. Very well, as a matter of fact. And while it wasn't until four years later that I lost my virginity (and not to the woman who is currently my wife, to my shame), it could have happened at any point in time between...call it a lack of opportunity, rather than lack of interest. All throughout that time, I STILL thought it was wrong. But oh, how I wanted it! And finally, one day, there it was -- the opportunity I'd thus far serendipitously avoided. I regret it to this day, but that's not the same as saying that I didn't enjoy it immensely. And that's kind of the point.

I don't think I'm all that different from most males in this respect. Men are -- let's be honest, guys -- men are horn dogs. True, true, true. And while I have no interest in playing for the 'other team', I hear gay men are horn dogs too...ewwww. Sorry, if you're gay, that's your thing, and this being a free country, you're welcome to it. But ewwww. Just ewwww. I digress.

Human biology being what it is, and social morality being what it is, I don't think there's all that much difference between male and female libido. The penalties are higher, of course: guys don't get pregnant. That in and of itself is enough to make any self-respecting girl step back, maybe head for the (cold) showers. Again, though: It's NOT THE SAME THING, as saying girls don't want "it". There's just a higher price tag associated with the risk.

So, they're going to have sex. Some will. Many, even, given the state of our culture and media, where sex sells and many of the people our children look up to -- role models?? -- are either pretending to have it on-screen, or really having it in the news and tabloids. It doesn't matter that they think it's wrong, per se, or that they're worried about the P-bomb. And STDs? Please. What teenager ever thought they were not immortal, going to live forever, etc.? When you're 14, french kissing another 14-year-old who's been having sex since she was 11, and is good at it, and she wants to show you what you're missing by 'kicking it up a notch'... I'm shocked I made it to 18. It was a very close thing, and while that was the first close call, it wasn't the last one. It's a pleasant surprise, to me, to find out that anybody makes it to marriage, with their virginity intact. And there's always that lingering question, "I wonder if they're being honest..." I'm an inherently honest person, and sometimes it hurts me. If you're a Christian, and you're also a horn dog, there's some serious social penalties in place if people 'know what you did last summer', if you get my drift.

So, to my main point: Anybody who thinks that 'abstinence training' is the band-aid that will cure the cerebral hemorrhage that is pubescent libido, is living in fantasy land. That's like spending all of your retirement money buying lottery tickets, because eventually, you'll win big and be able to retire. Yeah.

Problem with that is, to extend the metaphor a little, everybody who doesn't win the lottery, pays the price -- furtive, guilty, unprotected sex, that endangers their health, conscience, and future. Why gamble?

Look at it another way. There are lots, and lots, and lots of people in this great country, who own firearms. It's fun to shoot guns, and it's fun to shoot things with guns. There is, as any conservative deserving of the title will tell you, nothing wrong with owning a gun. That's because placing a gun in the hands of a decent, sane human being does not turn them into a psychotic rampaging killing machine. We train people how to use guns safely, and have precautions in place to prevent guns from being misused by those who can't be trusted around them. Yes, there are still accidents, but for the most part, sanity prevails, and people are responsible. And when you really, really need the gun -- it's there.

Well? I knew, as a pre-teen and teen, that premarital sex was wrong. Most of the time, my willpower was sufficient to protect me from my own urges. But ultimately, no amount of abstinence training can stand between two teens wrapped up in the moment, and in each other. A condom, on the other hand, does this quite effectively. Trick is, just like when you're being mugged, if you don't already have the gun/condom handy, it's already too late.

And providing birth control is just another way to protect our valuable young people from having their entire future destroyed by a mistake that nature (and the Creator Himself) has predisposed them to make. It's an awesome idea, and about damn time.

Anyone who thinks different, is fooling themselves.

Interview With God, Part II

2007-10-06T13:54:00.000-07:00

Interviewer: So, welcome back from our short break, thank you for your continued interest. We're here with God, who has Graciously agreed to Speak with us today. God?

God: Hi, folks! Wassup?

Interviewer: Indeed. Now, God, before our break, You made what I would call very interesting statement. Earlier in our interview, You took credit for creating Humanity...

God: [interjecting] You don't need to capitalize 'humanity', just stick with My Attributes and Personal Pronouns. Continue...

Interviewer: Sorry, 'humanity'..., You took credit for their creation. Correct? And then just before the break, You said that humanity was imperfect, whereas You are perfect. Yes?

God: [nodding] Yes, correct on both points. Your point was...?

Interviewer: So you don't see any apparent contradiction in this? That a perfect being can perform an imperfect act?

God: I see where this is headed. Let's be frank: You're suggesting that I'm imperfect, because humanity is imperfect, and I created humanity?

Interviewer: Not so much suggesting, as asking You for clarification.

God: [shaking head] You don't need to tiptoe around what you really mean. I'm omniscient, remember? I KNOW what you meant.

Interviewer: Okay, I concede Your point. Still, can You answer the question? Will You help our audience understand what Your perspective on this issue is?

God: That's why I'm here. Look, there are two assumptions inherent in the way you phrased your question, and in the way most people approach this issue. Both assumptions are fatally flawed. The first assumption is that I created humanity the way humanity is now -- not true. The second assumption is that perfection is not degradable; that somehow something that is perfect now will be perfect forever -- also not true. I created this universe to have entropy, where without constant vigilance and concerted effort, perfection and order will always spiral down into disorder. I'll explain why I did this in a bit, but for now, accept the proposition that in fact, I created humanity perfect. Humanity, through a failure of effort and vigilance on its own part, allowed itself to degrade. To assume that I was party to this process, or caused it to happen through negligence, is really rather insulting.

Interviewer: [cautiously] I didn't mean to cause offense...

God: [irritably] No, I'm sure you didn't. But it still stings, when these accusations are made, and nobody bothers to stand up for Me. And it also hurts, to Know that something I made that was so fresh, so pure, so wonderful -- it's flawed now, so far from what I had intended.

Interviewer: So if I understand You correctly, You're saying that humanity was perfect, and then through some as-yet unidentified process, became imperfect?

God: That's exactly what I'm saying. And that 'unidentified' process has a name -- many names, actually. The best way to phrase it is 'hubris'. Excessive pride. The unassailable sense of individual self-satisfaction and self-sufficiency, to the exclusion of any and all prudent humility. Humanity became stuck up, self-absorbed, completely certain of their own abilities and unwilling to consider the fact that they might need Me.

Interviewer: At what point did You recognize that humanity had become flawed?

God: [tired-sounding] How many times do I need to repeat Myself? I'm omnicient. I knew it would happen before I created them. I saw it unfold, before it happened.

Interviewer: As a human myself, and therefore a beneficiary of Your creation, I'm not complaining, but...if You knew already, then Why?

God: Why did I create humanity?

Interviewer: Yes, Why?

God: [sighs] Hello! Anyone listening? Honestly, sometimes I wonder why I bother...look, for the LAST TIME, I'm OMNISCIENT. I knew what would happen in the end. I judged it worth the effort.

Interviewer: Ah! So, then...there's hope? For humanity, I mean.

God: Certainly! There's always hope! You know the phrase, "while there's life, there's hope"? Well, I AM. I always Was. I always Will Be. I hold the keys to life and death, and can give either to anyone I choose. While I AM, there is life. While I AM, there is hope.

Interviewer: You, Yourself, are the hope of humanity?

God: That's exactly what I'm saying. You see, I created humanity perfect, but incomplete. I did so on purpose, for reasons which I will explain in just a bit. The missing bit, the part that was incomplete, was Me. I didn't see it as a problem then (and still don't) because I'll always be available to fill that gap -- to make humanity complete. But just because I'm available, doesn't mean that humanity is forced to avail itself of Me.

Interviewer: I think I see where You are going with this.

God: About time you managed to connect the dots yourself, instead of asking silly questions. But, just in case you're off-target, tell me: where am I going with this?

Interviewer: You're saying, in essence, that humanity introduced its own flaws, shortly after choosing to disassociate itself from You?

God: Bingo! He can be taught!

Interviewer: Okay, I think our audience is able to understand that argument. I don't know if everyone will accept it...

God: [sadly] Take it from Me, not everybody does. Sad, but true.

Interviewer: Let's go back to something you said earlier, while explaining how humanity became imperfect -- You said that You'd explain why You created humanity incomplete. Can You do that now?

God: Sure. I'm perfect. In fact, I'm the definitive source of perfection. By definition, anything I create is perfect, but also, relies exclusively on Me to remain so. Nothing I create is ever completely self-sufficient -- it needs Me. In order to create something that was both perfect, and completely self-sufficient, I'd need to provide it with a duplicate copy of Me. Ask yourself how practical that is, in a universe populated with googols' worth of galaxies, stars, planets, organisms, etc. How many copies of Me would I need to create? And for what? Why do that, when all I really need to do is just ensure I'm always available? That's not difficult -- I'm eternal, so I always will be.

Interviewer: So what You're saying is, it's purely for reasons of practicality that humanity is incomplete.

God: Not exactly, but I see you get My drift. What's the point of creating a copy of Me anyway? We'd be identical, and therefore agree totally on anything We decided to do, or say. Nothing could differentiate between Us, so closely in parallel would We be. And for what? Besides, if humanity could turn away from Me, why wouldn't they turn away from My copy? It's the same thing, all over again. Why needlessly complicate things?

Interviewer: I think I understand that. For the record, have You ever made a copy of Yourself?

God: [smugly] Wouldn't you like to know? Short of Me actually coming right out and admitting it, how would you know? If the copy is so perfectly in sync with the original that there's absolutely no difference whatsoever, who can tell?

Interviewer: Yes or no, is all I'm asking...will You tell us if you've ever made a copy of Yourself?

God: [smirking] No.

Interviewer: 'No, I never copied myself', or 'No, I won't tell you'?

God: [laughing] No, I won't tell you. Not any more than I have already. And like I said, it wouldn't matter anyway. Have it whatever way you like it, but them's the breaks.

Interviewer: I'd like to address another issue You promised to explain more about, in our conversation earlier. You mentioned that You deliberately created the universe so that it had entropy. That brings at least two questions to mind: First, You had other options -- what were they? And Second, Why choose entropy, over those other options?

God: Sure, I had other options. I could have created a static universe, where nothing ever happens without My directly causing it to happen -- kind of like a working model universe, where every time I wanted something simple like a supernova to happen, I'd have to prick a star with My cosmic 'pin'. Not much fun, I think you'll have to agree. I could also have created a universe where everything was completely independent of me. That would entail making copies of Myself, which, as we discussed earlier, is impractical. Instead, I created a universe where things could happen, and when they happened, they could influence other things, and make new things happen, without Me becoming a 'slave' to the machinery of creation. But, and this is important, because I'm the vital force that connects everything, if I decline to actively maintain something, I made sure that entropy was there, to allow that something to gradually fade out of existence. Things that I think are important, stick around longer. Things I have no further use for, fade away. Neat -- Not only do I not have to run the machine all the time, I don't even need to run around after My creation, picking up the mess it leaves behind. Eventually, everything reverts back to nothingness. Just clump it together, compress it all up into a black hole, and shoot it out the other side of the universe as a fresh stream of brand-new elemental particles, ready for recombination. It's a very tidy system, if I say so myself.

Interviewer: I think some physicists might disagree with 'tidy' being used to describe that process.

God: [laughing] Who cares what they think? They can go to hell.

Interviewer: Figure of speech?

God: Yes, and no. Who knows? Besides Me, that is. They might end up there, after all.

Interviewer: Let's talk about that. What, exactly, is 'hell'? Did You create it?

God: [winking] Hell, no! Ha, ha, just kidding. Yes, we can talk about it; but no, I didn't create hell. In fact, to be completely frank, it doesn't literally exist.

Interviewer: Near the start of our chat, I spent several seconds there -- by Your invitation, as I recall. How can you say that it doesn't exist, now?

God: I said it doesn't literally exist. It's not a real, physical place. There is no 'atlas of the universe', but if there were one, there very definitely would NOT be an entry for hell: "Climate -- hot! Ethnicity -- demons & dead bad people. Exports include fire, and brimstone." What utter nonsense. Pure imagination, all of it.

Interviewer: But I was there, if only for a short time. What was it, then, that I experienced?

God: I just told you. Pure imagination.

Interviewer: You're saying it was all in my mind, is that it?

God: Now, THAT'S a metaphysical question. Okay, I'll bite: Yes, it was all in your mind. And so is this. And so has every minute, every second, every experience you've ever had, every day in your life, been in your mind. It's ALL in your mind. Just because most of the 'real' universe is also 'out here' where other people can experience it without you being present, doesn't mean that it's not also there in your mind. Ever hear the phrase, 'perception is 90% of reality'? As far as I'm concerned, they were off by 10%. 100% of the reality YOU experience, you experience in your mind. That's what defines the essential concepts of 'you', and 'experience', and 'reality' -- your mind. Reality is all those bits that you can't change, simply by thinking or wishing them changed. The rest is you, and experience is the sum total of the changes you make to yourself, over time. It, and by 'it', I mean everything, is all in your mind.

Interviewer: That's a lot of metaphysical rhetoric for a simple answer. Does hell exist? Or doesn't it?

God: It exists, but it's not part of 'reality'. You can experience it, but only through your perception, in your mind. You've heard the saying, "hell is other people"? Like many of the really catchy aphorisms that people like to recite, it's essentially true, but not in the way it seems at first glance. Hell is other people, because hell is also you. Everybody who believes in hell participates in its creation and maintenance. And, I've found, most people believe in hell, in some way or another. Including you. When I 'sent you to hell', I just accessed that part of your psyche that believed it deserved punishment, and matched it up with the other part of your psyche that knew what kind of punishment it ought to get. It was real only in the sense that you believed it to be real. What actually happened was, I sat here and counted to ten, while you faced both your own inner guilt, and inner judge -- and suffered the condemnation that your subconscious mind believes it deserves. You, physically at least, never went anywhere.

Interviewer: [shuddering] It certainly felt real. I don't ever want to experience that again, please.

God: I can't promise that.

Interviewer: [momentarily alarmed] Why not? And while we're at it, why does hell exist, anyway? I know You explained what it is, but why? Why does humanity have this kind of...of defect, that lurks in their psyche? Did You put it there?

God: The answer to your last question is, 'yes', I did put it there. You're going to want to know why, and I'll get to that, but hear me out first. As to why I can't promise you'll never experience hell again, that's part of my explanation as well. Ready?

Interviewer: [stiffly] I'm listening.

God: Good. See, the thing is, when I created humanity, keeping in mind that I gave them free will, and the ability to make choices for themselves, and also keeping in mind that without Me, they're incomplete...with Me so far? There was always the chance that they'd use their free will to choose not to remain connected to Me. I needed to give them a way to sense that, so that they'd be able to recognize when they were drifting away from Me, and also tie it to a sense of urgency, that they'd know it was important to re-connect. I knew it wouldn't be enough to keep everybody connected, but that was all I could do, while maintaining the integrity of their free will.

Interviewer: I still don't see...

God: [impatiently] I'm getting to that, give Me a bit. Where was I? Ah, yes, free will, and conscience. Free will, so they could be independent enough from Me to recognize and enjoy both of Us, and conscience so that people would be able to recognize when pursuing their own independence threatened their continued ability to connect to Me. It wasn't enough for most people, but it was the best I could do. Thing is, humans are really good at ignoring things they don’t want to acknowledge. That includes the warning signals coming from their conscience. With practice, they can reduce the conscious impact of My warning signal to nearly imperceptible. BUT! That doesn’t mean the intensity of the warning decreases, or that it stops signaling. It just means the signals get processed by their unconscious and subconscious minds instead. In the dark, hidden places of the human psyche, the conscience’s warning continues to signal. The pressure – of guilt, of isolation, of need – continues to build. And there, in those dark places, humans also know exactly who is to blame for their isolation and pain, whether they acknowledge it or not. Hell is not a place where I send wicked people to endure torment. Hell is how people who refuse to acknowledge Me, who refuse to re-connect, torment themselves.

Interviewer: That seems a bit harsh. I find it hard to believe that what I experienced is nothing more than a self-loathing fantasy brought on by my own persistent refusal to acquiesce to Your conditions.

God: You know, I’d be lying if I said that your reaction was any different than most people’s. And, seeing as I can’t lie…well…it must be true. Oh, and I’m omniscient, too, so the old saw about it being ‘truth as I know it, but not necessarily true’ doesn’t hold water either. It’s True.

Interviewer: Forgive me if this seems a bit bold, but don’t You think that’s stretching even Your credibility, just a little? It seems awfully trite, to just toss that out there, and take no Personal responsibility for how things turn out. You’re suggesting that all of the misery and suffering that exists is the result of humans refusing to connect to You. Isn’t it a bit irresponsible, after creating humanity with that critical piece missing, to disavow any liability when they inevitably stumble over it?

God: I’m glad you brought that up. You’re right, of course: it’s all about personal responsibility, in the end. I don’t like the fact that hell exists, but ultimately I’m not the one that created it. In fact, if given the opportunity, I can erase it from the psyche of every person who simply fulfils their part of the arrangement. Re-connect with Me, and it all goes away. Let’s be clear – when given the chance, I DO take responsibility, and also effect remediation. But I won’t do all that, if people don’t want Me to. I’m Just, I’m Fair, and I’m not a bully. You don’t want me to meddle? Fine, I won’t. But after saying that, don’t push the blame for what happens next back on me! You want to talk about responsibility? Then you need to accept it, when it lands on your shoulders. Don’t just shrug and hope it falls on somebody else, because it won’t.

Interviewer: I can see You’re not willing to give any ground on this.

God: No, I’m not.

Interviewer: Very well. I just have a few more topics I’d like to cover with you. Let’s take a short break, and then resume with Part III of the interview. Will that be okay? Can you spare the time?

God: [smiling] I have all the time in the world. Literally.

Interviewer: Great! And now, a word from our sponsors…

Interview With God, Part 1

2007-09-08T17:15:00.000-07:00

[Editor's Note: This interview took place entirely within the mind of our intrepid reporter. Those of you who find the idea of God actually speaking within the minds of humanity completely impossible, can just go to hell...and probably will.]

Interviewer: So, thank-you God, for joining us to share a some insights about what it means to be You, Your long history interacting with humanity, and how Your mind works. Please, feel welcome and at home.

God: Damn straight; I AM at home. Let's get this started, shall we?

Interviewer: Okay, let's cut right to the chase then. You are real, aren't you? Not just a fictitious construct of the superstitious and unevolved human psyche? An outmoded artifact of a primitive cosmology, having little or no relevance to our current enlightened age?

God: I AM. How many Me-damned times do I have to say it? It's practically My name -- in fact, it IS My name. I AM. How stupid do you have to be, to not get that? I exist. End of story. Well, actually, beginning of story too, 'coz I AM the end, and the beginning.

Interviewer: But there are a lot of humans -- atheists, agnostics -- who believe that You don't exist, or might not. How do You respond to that?

God: Simple. I say, "Go to hell." And they do, every last one of them, eventually.

Interviewer: That seems kind of harsh...I think many of our readers would agree.

God: Yeah? Go to hell... [counts to ten] ...okay, you can come back now. So, you were saying?

Interviewer: [badly shaken, smelling of brimstone, with wisps of smoke curling from hair and clothes] Nothing! Er, nothing, my apologies, no offense meant. Soooo, moving right along...those who believe in You often attribute You with the ultimate in superlative abilities -- omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. I think we'd all like to know: how can that be true?

God: You're referring to the apparent logical paradox in that statement. Something along the lines of, "If I'm omnipotent, I should be able to create a rock that's too big for Me to carry." Right?

Interviewer: That's one of many variations, I'm sure You will be familiar with more.

God: Naturally. I'm omniscient, remember? [laughs] And the typical human logical reaction is to say, "Hey, that's not possible! Omnipotence means He can carry anything. He can create anything. But when you put the two together, it's a logical impossibility, ergo God can't exist!" And then they get all excited, like they've had an epiphany or something -- which goes to show you how dumb they really are, because I have to exist in order for anyone to experience epiphanies. A bunch of self-satisfied, stuck-up pricks, the entire lot of them. I mean, really: If I'm truly omnipotent, I should be able to do anything I decide to do -- INCLUDING the impossible things. What the hell is omnipotence good for, if you can't use it to do impossible things? That's, like, the definition of omnipotence! Any five-year-old child can understand this concept, and yet so-called 'intelligent' adult academics have such trouble with it.

Interviewer: So, do you have trouble understanding why humanity finds this paradox so difficult to reconcile?

God: What I have trouble with is maintaining My patience in the face of really dumb questions. [gives Interviewer meaningful glance] I'm omniscient, remember? Of course I understand why humanity sees a paradox where none exists. It's all down to credibility. To those who don't believe in Me in the first place, I have no credibility. I could say whatever I want, and of course it'd be True (it's Me saying it, after all), and they still wouldn't believe Me.

Interviewer: Fair enough. As a side note, if you really ARE omniscient...

God: If? Go to...

Interviewer: [frantically backtracking] ..."Because", I meant to say, "because you are omniscient"...

God: That's better. But you've started leaving out the capitals on My Personal Pronouns, you were doing so well up to now...

Interviewer: [visibly relieved]...Right, sorry, sorry...honest mistake, please forgive me...

God: [interjecting] I always do...

Interviewer: ...thanks, thank-you very much for that. But, back to my question: You knew in advance that I'd ask these questions, even before agreeing to the interview. That is, if I understand omniscience in the absolute sense. Why is it, then, that You are reacting in anger just now, and not previously? Why agree to the interview at all, if You knew You would be offended? Have You been angry this entire time? Can You give us a glimpse of what that must be like?

God: Well, as I always say, "There's a time for everything." There's a time to be angry, and a time when being angry is not appropriate. Besides, if I spent all of My time wandering around getting angry about things, I'd never get anything done.

Interviewer: So, not to get off-topic, but I just want to clarify, You DO experience the forward flow of time, then? Because some of our readers believe you exist outside of time, or that you don't really experience time in the same way humanity does...?

God: It was a figure of speech. Let Me phrase My answer differently: Just because I CAN do something whenever I want to, doesn't mean I WILL always do it when I want to, or even that I will ever actually WANT to do that thing. Going around angry about all of the stupidity I encounter every time I interact with humanity isn't going to stem the tide, and it doesn't make Me feel better either. Best to forget about it.

Interviewer: Another figure of speech?

God: Damn right.

Interviewer: [panicky] Er, another figure of speech?

God: [smiling] Finally, he gets it. Bravo!

Interviewer: [visibly relaxing] So, that's very interesting. You've displayed several of the very wide range of human emotions and behaviors, during our conversation. Anger, irritation, satisfaction, even humor. Do you, in fact, experience human-like emotions?

God: Yes and no. A better way to phrase the question would be, "Do humans experience Godly emotions?" The answer is, of course, "Yes." I've been assigned responsibility for having created humanity in My image, it's natural that they would share some of My cognitive processes.

Interviewer: [thoughtfully] Only some?

God: Yes, only some. Humanity can't really fully comprehend what it means to be Me; they can only catch glimpses here and there, where We share common characteristics. That, at least, the mystics got right -- when they weren't busy eradicating the good sense I gave them by getting high all the damn time -- some things about Me, you just have to accept as articles of faith.

Interviewer: So the opposite is also true, then, that humanity really can appreciate what God is like, even if it is in a limited way? Is that a fair assessment?

God: Certainly. Look, let Me ask you a question now: What good would it do Me, to create a race of intelligent (but not that intelligent) beings, with which I had almost nothing in common? That were incapable of identifying with Me, in any way, shape, or form? What's in it for Me? What's My motivation? I mean, I could do that, but why?

Interviewer: That's valid, I guess. Parse that response a little differently, though, and it sounds like You created humanity for purely Selfish reasons?

God: Don't put words in My mouth, now. It's bigger than that, but in the most abstract and factual way, yes, that's true. The thing is, I'm omnipresent. Everywhere, anywhere, all the time. I'm in you, I'm next to you, I'm in the next galaxy over, while at the same time straddling the edges of all of the universes...you follow me? What's good for Me, in a very real way, is also good for you, 'coz I'm with you, and in you, etc., etc., ad infinitum...

Interviewer: Point taken.

God: [continuing] ...so anyway, naturally, if I were to create a race that couldn't experience Me, or share with Me the incredible awesomeness that it is to Be Me, I'd be doing them a tremendous disservice. I'd lose out, they'd lose out -- it's just not practical. It could be done, I could do it, but I haven't done it, nor will I. Humanity very definitely has a share of My Godliness; that was My doing, and believe Me when I say it, it was definitely in their best interests for Me to make them that way. In spite of what some so-called atheists and agnostics think, Me bless 'em...

Interviewer: [interest piqued, leaning forward] Now, that's an interesting statement. Earlier, You condemned atheists and agnostics to Hell, but just now You said You bless them. If You don't mind me asking, which is it?

God: Both. What, I'm not allowed to bless people if I feel like it? I'm not allowed to damn them, when I feel like it? If you don't mind Me asking, keeping in mind that I'm omnipotent, why couldn't I?

Interviewer: [puzzled] So you do, in fact, bless people who completely disavow your very existence? I just want to be clear, here, because it's such a counter-intuitive concept.

God: Yes, I know. [laughs] Look, what would you do? Think about it.

Interviewer: I don't know, I'm not God...

God: [interjecting] Cut the crap. We just covered this: I gave you both the ability to think, as well as the ability to think like Me, even if only in a limited sense. What would you do? Kill them all immediately? What then? If they're dead, they CAN'T believe in Me any more. Torture them? They'd blame it on bad luck, or coincidence. Manifest Myself in front of them, force them to acknowledge Me? Think about it for a bit. What, when it comes right down to it, are My options?

Interviewer: Well, I suppose when You put it that way...but bless them? Seriously, now.

God: Fine, if you won't stretch yourself to figure it out on your own, I'll say it bluntly: I own everything. Everything. I AM everything. Everything! I know everything. All of it! Anything you might claim as your own, is and was Mine from the very beginning, and will remain Mine all the way through to the end. You -- yourself, the 'me' that looks out from behind your eyes at the rest of Me -- is a blessing, or a curse, depending on how you interact with Me. You're a blessing just because you are, and potentially for a great many other reasons besides. Because I am the ultimate embodiment of Good, of course I want you to be blessed. Even when you can't appreciate that fact.

Interviewer: That's a flattering concept, and also humbling. Am I really a part of You?

God: That's what I said.

Interviewer: And, You hinted at this, I can be either a blessing, or a curse?

God: Not exactly. What I actually implied was, you can be BOTH a blessing, AND a curse. At the same time. Do you understand?

Interviewer: [still puzzled] Of course You already know I don't. How is that possible?

God: [sighs] Again, you ask what you could discern for yourself, if only you'd make the effort. When you act in harmony with Our shared Godly nature, you are a blessing. When you act against that nature, you're a curse. There's a net overall effect, which is what you humans often confuse with being 'good' or 'evil' in the absolute sense, but in fact, most people are complex mixes of both attributes. Just because somebody doesn't believe in Me, doesn't mean that they're all bad. And just because somebody does believe in Me (or more often, claims to believe in Me, which is NOT the same thing) doesn't mean they're all good.

Interviewer: [startled] There are shades of grey, so to speak? I can hardly believe that You'd even suggest such a thing, and yet here You are, doing exactly that. What about Your vaunted absolute Goodness?

God: No, no, no...let's stay on-topic. We're talking about humans, here. Humans exist in shades of grey. I'm absolutely Good, no exceptions.

Interviewer: But not too long ago, You claimed to be a part of everything. If humans are partly good and partly bad, doesn't that make You partly good and bad?

God: And not too long before that, I explained that being omnipotent means being able to accomplish the impossible, effortlessly. I'm absolutely Good. It's as simple as that, you just have to accept it. Omnipotence means never having to say, "I can't do that."

Interviewer: [doubtfully] I find that hard to believe...

God: [amused] You're saying that here, now, to Me? Care to re-think that statement?

Interviewer: [nervously] Er, yes, perhaps that's not the most graceful way to phrase the feeling, and yet You must know what I mean.

God: Of course. Look, that's what faith is for. Do you trust Me? If you trust Me, then you can accept it. If there's even a glimmer of doubt, it leaves you wide open to this kind of second-guessing. If there's anything I sometimes wish I could have given humanity more of, it's faith -- the kind of faith that children find so easy, but adults have such a hard time with. It'd all be so much easier, if people would just believe Me. But that's really not the point, and because it's not the point, that's why I didn't. It's painful sometimes, but you do the best you can, when You are Me. Humans have the level of faith they have, because it was the right level to give them. It's not perfect, but then, neither are they. Only I am perfect.

Interviewer: Hold that thought, and let's return to that when we pick up this conversation in Part II of this interview. And now, a word from our sponsors...

What If...

2007-08-01T16:47:00.000-07:00

This is the first of (hopefully) a series of posts that asks questions I've spent (wasted?) time wondering about. Now you, too, can squander precious minutes of life pondering questions that a normal mind would never bother asking...ready, steady, GO!

What if looks really could kill? What kind of changes would occur in our society, if by merely glaring at somebody and wishing them dead, they died? Could society still continue to function (albeit in a much-altered fashion)? Or would the civilization die out because it could no longer risk mutual cooperation? Could humanity survive as a species, if children could in a fit of pique kill their parents or other authority figures? What kind of changes in social interaction would need to be introduced, in order to allow people to continue to co-exist in a civilized way, while minimizing ocular murder?

What if it could be conclusively proven that there really is an afterlife? What if there were multiple possible afterlives available, and people could choose, after dying, which one they wanted? If there was no way to know which afterlife their loved ones chose, and no way to change afterlives after making the initial choice, how would it impact funeral preparations and legacy planning? How would it impact human behavior, if a person’s behavior prior to death had no bearing on which afterlife they could select? How would people’s choices regarding suicide change, if they knew for sure that not only would they continue to exist as a conscious entity, they had a variety of alternatives available after-the-fact? Would currently suicidal persons reconsider suicide, if they found out that none of those alternatives were any better, or were even significantly worse than their current situation? What if reincarnation was really true, and furthermore, you had a range of possibilities from which you could choose? If it were possible to choose an afterlife, or remain on Earth as a ghost (with the traditional ghostly restrictions), what might induce an intelligent, rational person to opt to become a ghost?

What if psychic powers were real, but there was a prohibitively high personal cost to using them? What if that cost was the loss of a little bit of one’s sanity? What if that cost was a little bit of one’s lifespan? One’s physical strength? How would society change, if psychics really could peer into a person’s future (despite the cost), and there really was nothing that could be done to alter the prediction? How would people identify ‘fake’ predictions prior to the prediction failing – could they? If every person knew that they could instantaneously send a one-way telepathic message every time they tried, but every time they did so, they’d be comatose (unconscious and unable to care for themselves) for a month, under what circumstances would it be worth the risk? If people knew they could be short-term temporarily possessed (say, no longer than 24 hours a stretch) at any time by another intelligent consciousness that had little or no knowledge of their lifestyle, and little or no interest in maintaining their lifestyle in any case, how would those people accommodate the ‘interruptions’?

What if superstitions really did work, but only if people truly believed in them? When two people walk down a sidewalk – one superstitious, the other not – how do they cooperate in setting a pace that minimizes the chance that the superstitious one will inadvertently break his/her mother’s back by stepping on a crack? Could a non-superstitious person become superstitious? Or a superstitious person ‘lose the faith’? Would the non-superstitious person even be willing to acknowledge the superstitions of his/her peers, for fear they might somehow become a believer? Would insurers need to be legally forced to provide medical insurance to superstitious people or to non-believers with superstitious family members? How would mirror production be affected? Cat breeding? Would a superstitious person and an unbeliever be able to have a normal relationship? If so, how would they choose to raise their children – as superstitious, or non-superstitious? Could two superstitious parents successfully raise a non-superstitious child, and thereby break the cycle? If a person with irrational beliefs could start new superstitions from scratch, could they spread to others (superstitious or not)? What would society’s reaction be toward superstitious persons if the condition was preventable but not reversible, and the prevention consisted of merely refusing to associate with somebody who became superstitious? Could superstitions be turned to one’s advantage, by believing strongly enough?

What if the creation story was essentially true (meaning the fossil record and radioisotope dating methods were deliberately tampered with, to mislead researchers, or were totally meaningless for some reason), and the world really was only 6000 or so years old? What if the creation wasn’t carried out by an all-powerful God figure, but merely just another God amongst an entire society of Gods, the individual in question being the cosmic equivalent of a nerdy model-building adolescent? What if, to these beings, ‘build-your-own-living-planet’ kits were a commodity edutainment product, like ant-farms are for human children? What if there were ‘better’ Gods, whose ‘Earth’ turned out much more utopian? What if they could choose to trade kits amongst themselves? What if they could choose to trade people (or other features) from one kit to another? What might happen to their ‘toys’ when they lost interest, because they suddenly discovered an interest in God(s) of the other gender(s)? What if evolution was essentially true, but with the same caveat that ‘in the beginning, God bought a kit’? What if there were contests to see which God could grow His/Her/Its kit the farthest, or the fastest? What would happen if the God that owned Earth were to reveal Him/Her/Itself, and attempt to take a greater role in human affairs? How would the religious establishment react? Governments? Everyone else? To what level would people try to hold that entity responsible for humanities’ woes? What level of responsibility would such a being be willing to accept for suffering and death that might just as fairly be considered the fallout of purely human decision-making?

What if ‘eye for an eye’ was rigidly and universally enforced by an external factor that could not be prevented nor influenced? If spanking one’s children really did hurt parents as much or more than the child, how many parents would continue to spank? If inadvertently killing somebody would immediately and inexorably lead to your own demise, how would social norms and expectations be influenced? What if death by natural causes / old age / suicide was no longer a factor, and the only way to die was to violently end the life of another? Would revenge continue to be a human motivation if you knew that your antagonist had already suffered exactly as much as you did, and furthermore that when exacting your own revenge you would suffer in exactly the same proportion as your enemy does?

On Lucidity Part Two -- The Unintended Sequel

2007-07-27T20:56:00.000-07:00

When I wrote 'On Lucidity', it was mainly to verbalize, and therefore render concrete, my own assessment of my own abilities. I am a relatively good communicator, and by extension a passable writer, and am concerned (overly much?) with being understood by others as I understand my topic in my own mind.

I had intended to write again today, 'just because', as practice. Not because I had anything in particular I wanted to say, but just because I wanted to write -- the topic being, of course, wanting to write but having little or nothing to say.

On a whim, I surfed to a randomly-selected website first. As luck would have it, the article was one dealing with writing. In fact, the article's title was, "Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully - in Ten Minutes". I was about to laughingly dismiss the window when I noticed who the author was: Stephen King.

I've never liked Stephen King. Or, more precisely, he's an excellent and very successful author, and an amusing personality besides, whose body of work is mainly well-outside my own sphere of interest. Put simply, I don't enjoy horror much. But Stephen King as a person, I find amusing and engaging. And as an author, well...if anyone can boast about knowing how to write successfully, it's him. So I gave the article a second look.

Genius! Pure genius! The point of this article is not to rehash his, and I'm sure you can find it online using the title and a half-decent search engine anyway. No, the point of this article is to follow up the somewhat morose 'On Lucidity' with the message of hope -- given me by Steve himself -- that by applying some simple practical guidelines I can dramatically improve the quality of what I write, and my chances of getting published.

Huzzah!

On Lucidity

2007-07-26T07:16:00.000-07:00

I'm a lucid writer. What, exactly, does that mean? So glad you asked! Being a lucid writer means choosing your words carefully, and communicating clearly. It's really too bad that such a simple concept needs explanation -- it sort of gives
lie to the whole 'clear communication' on which lucid writing depends. I mean, if I were REALLY a lucid writer, it should be immediately obvious to any and all readers, upon reading my own description of my own writing style, what that style actually entails.

So perhaps I should amend my claim thusly: I ASPIRE to be a lucid writer. And not without justification, either -- while I may not have achieved such yet, my technical ability to explain and elucidate concepts and ideas is quite well-developed. I take time to choose my words carefully, and spend nearly as much time attempting to capture with simple clarity the essence of the subject at hand. Lucid writing is not technical writing, per se: technical writing may of necessity include jargon and proprietary words that are both pertinent and essential to the subject matter. Yet technical writing would be worthless if it were not lucid. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, I'm quite a talented technical writer. Nevertheless, lucid writing is larger than this.

Lucid writing is also not simply a matter of choosing the EXACTLY appropriate words, either. There are over half a million 'English' words in the 'English' language (what a bastard, thieving tongue that is!). There ought to be, most probably is, at least one word in this melange of memes that exactly encapsulates the idea or concept one wishes to elucidate. Elucidate = to make lucid; see that? Lucid writing! I digress... The problem with that one perfect word is that while it may completely and totally describe all that you wish to communicate, there is no guarantee your audience is in any way familiar with that perfect word. If words could stand on their own, needing no authority nor explanation as to what they mean, what use are dictionaries? And where would it be more appropriate than in a dictionary, to include a lucid (and succinct) explanation of the concept or idea that backs a word? Therefore, lucid writing is not precision writing, nor scientific writing -- it is abstract and artistic writing which nevertheless faithfully communicates the essence of the topic.

So now you know, or at least have a better idea, what lucid writing is and by association, what might be expected of a lucid writer. So far, so good. So what? Indeed...

The thing is, I really, really, really want to be an author. Not an author in the 'New York Times Bestseller' sense, though that would be nice. More of an author in the 'Required reading for high-school Literature class' sense. It's silly, I know. It's like saying, "when I grow up, after I retire from my career as a fire-fighting astronaut NASCAR driver, I want to be President!" Maybe not so extreme, but you get the idea. And while I don't know this for a fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'lucid writing', whatever the hell THAT is, isn't going to cut it.

Look at Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." How cool is that? Factual, and yet hysterically funny. He's got a million of 'em! Or "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." Well? Which one was it? But the thing is, EVERYBODY knows what that means: for all decent, hard-working, peace-loving people, it was the worst of times, and for every profiteering slimeball sleaze and/or wealthy dilettante it was a great time to make money / have a great time. Obscure, and yet lucid at the same time. Brilliant!

There's a spark of genius in truly exceptional writing that defies lucidity, while at the same time redefining it. One of my favorite literary terms is 'conceit', which in the context of writing means, 'a comparison that is startling or otherwise unusual, and yet still remains appropriate'. I maintain therefore, without casting aspersion nor assigning hubris, narcissism, or other character deficits, that all of the truly exceptional writers are also extremely conceited. Pun intended! Without the thrill imparted by a shocking turn of phrase, what would most literature be? Why does Shakespeare, after all of these years, still command the respect and adulation of millions of literati? Because he takes words that everybody knows (or knew, as the case may be -- not all of his vocabulary is still common parlance today), and combines them in ways that are novel, yet understandable. Any idiot, and a great many more no-talent hacks, can juxtapose seemingly unrelated yet pretentious words into a befuddling array of random bullshit. It takes a genius to carefully select otherwise innocuous words, arrange them 'just so', and in so doing produce the blinding flashes of insight in their readers' minds that is the hallmark of truly excellent writing.

So what hope can I have, as merely a 'lucid' writer, of joining that august pantheon of great literary minds? The odds are not good, that much is certain. Yet without lucidity, the act of writing is itself a vanity; useless.

It has been said that practice makes perfect, and not without good reason. Practice does enhance performance, assuming one is gifted with aptitude and able instruction. It has also been said that inspiration and perspiration are twins -- inseparable, and to a lesser extent indistinguishable from one another. I hope that with time, and practice, I will eventually become a lucid writer. I hope that with even more time, and even more practice, I will eventually overcome 'lucid writing' and step into the greatness that lies beyond.

On the Reformation, and the Evolution of Religious Tolerance

2007-07-13T19:35:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of people making a big deal about the Pope's recent disclosure that Protestants are still heretics, ecumenical prayer power breakfasts notwithstanding. To be fair, he didn't come right out and SAY it, but it amounts to the same thing. Protestants are not Christians, they're only 'members of Christ-centered communities'. They can pray to Christ, and observe ceremonies similar to the eucharist, and even get together on Sunday, or Saturday, or whatever. They may hold their services in a building called a church, but when it comes right down to it, they are not members of a Church. Or rather, THE Church. And salvation? Well, they may be 'instrumental' to salvation, but if you really want to be saved, the only way to do it is to be an obedient Catholic and kiss the Pope's ass...er, RING, I meant. Kiss the ring, right. Sorry, got a little carried away there. You can put down the pitchforks and torches now...

Needless to say, leaders of all of the different Protestant Chur... -- er, I mean to say, prominent Christ-aware leaders of well-meaning but apostate congregations -- are less than thrilled about the Pope's attitude.

On the other hand, I think they may be missing a couple of larger points, here. First, isn't that pretty much the whole idea? If Protestants cared what the Pope thought, wouldn't they be...wait for it...Catholic? I mean, that's kind of the whole idea behind the Protestant movement: Apostolic succession is a load of theological horse shit that has specious Biblical justification at best. At worst, apostolic succession would be considered heresy, especially in light of some of the teachings held by the early Christian believers, long before Peter ever set foot in Rome. Long story short, Protestants believe we don't need a Pope, don't need special priests (each believer directly interacts with Christ, who acts as priest for all), and when it comes to the eucharist, because we're not really Jewish any more, the wine and bread doesn't even need to be kosher! Wine and wafers, wonder bread and grape juice. Who cares? It's the thought that counts...to Protestants, anyway.

So it's understandable that Protestant leaders would be offended, but really, what did they expect? "Oops, sorry, we've been total jerks for the last two millenia, silly us. You set us straight toot sweet, you did, and for that we're eternally grateful! Here, have a turn wearing my nifty pointy gold hat..." Yeah, right.

Yeah, it's a position that's bound to chill ecumenical relations. But there's more to it than that. The second and more sinister lesson to learn is this: Catholics are STILL burning heretics. Yeah, you heard me. Heretics go to hell. End of story. The burning may have been postponed, dare I say, delegated, but the doctrine insists upon it. The timing may be negotiable -- burn now (Inquisition, anyone?) or burn later, when your heretic ass lands in hell. Your choice. Only, you want to burn your sorry ass right away, ya gotta do it yourself; the Pope, he's busy now. Tell ya what: here's a book of matches and some lighter fluid, now shoo!

So the only thing this really proves, at the end of the day, is that Martin Luther's spiritual journey may have been the spark that ignited what we now call the "Reformation", but even half a millennium later, the Catholic church has never really been truly reformed. It is as arrogant and prideful as it ever was, and while the excesses that prompted Luther to question his spiritual leaders have long since been abolished, the Catholic church's fundamental hubris remains: We're the only game in town. You may make all the right sounds, and know all the right moves, but if you don't play with our ball, using our rules, you aren't really playing.

It's sad, but that's how it is. Probably the only really good news in all of this is, in spite of what a long succession of pontiffs have to say, God gets to do whatever the hell He wants. From what I read, I fully expect that a lot more folk than the Pope expects will end up in Heaven. And, because there will no longer be any death or pain, it'll be pretty damn hard for the Pope(s) to do anything meaningful about all those 'heretics' living next door to them. Burning certainly will no longer be an option...

Anaesthetic Music

2007-07-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

It's been said that 'music can soothe the savage beast'. Oft-repeated, the saying has more than a little truth to it. Music can also stir us into action -- invigorate us, embolden us -- to do that which we might otherwise not even contemplate.

One particular piece of music that's been stuck in my mind all-too-often these days is the theme song to 'Mash'. It's such a hauntingly beautiful melody. My parents used to love watching that show, and I always felt both sad and relieved when the theme song ended, and the show started. Not too many people know this (at least I didn't, until a friend pointed it out), but the song actually has lyrics. The name of the song is, 'Suicide is Painless', and as expected, the song recounts one person's thoughts about the difficulty of life, and the 'exit strategy' that they could take, if they felt like it.

I mentioned my friend in passing, but in reality, this is more about him than anything else. You see, my friend -- Jeff, we'll call him -- knew the lyrics of the song by heart, way back in high school, where we met and attended classes together. When he told me, at first I was scandalized -- such a beautiful song, yet such terrible lyrics! He didn't agree. To him, it was purely a beautiful song, that proclaimed a message of hope. After listening to him sing it, in his clear tenor voice, I found it hard to argue with him. That memory haunts me now. Yes, you saw it coming: Jeff killed himself just after I graduated from college.

"...suicide is painless, It brings on many changes, And I can take or leave it if I please." I remember my shock and dismay when I heard the news. He'd hung himself, not that the method mattered. He was gone. We weren't great friends, but I'd always seen him as that kind of 'searching soul', someone who was destined to learn one of the great universal truths of human existence, and bring that knowledge back to share with his friends and family. I don't know what he found, but I can't shake his image from my mind: his youthful earnest face, as he enthusiastically explained those shocking lyrics to me, just a few short years before.

Jeff, suicide isn't painless. Every time I think about you, I'm filled with an indescribable sadness. Yes, you can take it as you please...certainly I could do nothing to stop you (not that you ever gave me the chance). If that's how I feel, how did your family feel? When they remember you, in sadness and in joy, what kind of pain pierces their hearts? Jeff, just because you can no longer experience pain doesn't make your choice painless...

Were you thinking about this song when you chose to die? Did you sing it to yourself, as the light in your eyes grew dim? Did the closing crescendo mark your passing, just as it marks the end of the opening credits on TV? It doesn't matter. What matters most to me, more than anything else, is that regardless what your answer might be, I can never ask you, and you can never tell me.

I know you probably thought of it as comforting, Jeff -- a balm to your soul, a romantic notion that helped you cope for a while, and then eased you beyond the need to cope. I'll forever see it differently. That song has always haunted me, and now you haunt me through it. It was an anaesthetic for you, but it will always bring nothing but pain and sadness to me.

I miss you, Jeff...

On Plagiarism

2007-07-07T21:52:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading an excellent novel, written by one of my favorite sci-fi authors. The author in question (can you guess who?) has been in publication since the 1950's, and has a significant collection of books dealing with future medicine / alien medicine. The topic of the book, one of his more recent publications, is one that I've often pondered on my own, completely independently of his contribution. His treatment of the topic was both satisfying, and much more thorough, than my own musings -- a fact that alternately pleases and irritates me.

See, the thing is, I'm constantly reading books, by both new and established authors, where the subject material is something about which I myself had spent a significant amount of time thinking. Often, though not universally, those authors arrive at similar conclusions, or use similar descriptive metaphor to communicate the concepts and consequences of the scenarios that they and I both considered. The major and, at least so far, universal difference between their treatment and my own is that THEY are respected and published authors whose ideas made it into print, whereas I am neither published nor known. To realize that I'm thinking about the same issues and scenarios that some of the most accomplished and celebrated authors of technology-oriented fiction are thinking about, and better, thinking in much the same way, is quite gratifying. On the other hand, it's horrifying to think that if I were ever to spin my own treatment of the topic into a physical, publishable tale, it might at best be received as a kind of breathlessly respectful tribute to the 'work of the master' who published first. And whose ideas I'd only encountered AFTER having formed my own...

It's frustrating, to say the least. The thought that I might be considered little more than an intellectual plagiarist, deserved or not, has been a major factor in my reluctance to write. It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that a great portion of my reluctance to write more, or to publish more, is due to the level apprehensiveness I hold against being considered a dirty cheater, an ideas-thief, an intellectually lazy profit-motivated copycat. Arrrrgh! I'm NOT! Not, not not!

I derive a small amount of comfort in the fact that some of the greats, who are also some of my favorites, seem to be comfortable in the same situation. Larry Niven, to drop names, unashamedly does exactly what I am afraid to do in his wonderful book, 'Rainbow Mars'. He pays tribute to all of the great Mars fiction writers, while at the same time weaving his own rich tapestery around all of his 'borrowed' material. He completely owned the material, right up to the point in the book's afterword and acknowledgements where he 'fesses up. I've read each and every one of the Mars books he borrowed from, and I still never saw it coming until he himself let the cat out of the bag. But the funny thing is, even after giving credit where credit is due, I can't help but see each of the works he borrowed from in an entirely new light. Larry's an immensely talented writer, and a legend in the genre, so he can get away with it. Could I get away with it? I'm not at all confident that I could.

Is it plagiarism if you had the idea independently? How would you prove you had the idea independently, anyway? I doubt most people would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Acknowledgement of 'prior art' by the author is useful at allaying suspicion only if the author knows in advance to the writing that 'prior art' exists. And even then, you can't say, "Oh, me and Larry, we had the same ideas, but totally in isolation to one another, so enjoy my work without thinking of his..." That's like saying, "Don't think about pink elephants!" The very mention is enough to accomplish exactly the conditions under advisory. Worse, not making mention, and then having a more well-read reader call you on your 'plagiarism' after the fact...the very idea that might happen just kills me.

Don't mistake me -- I'll find a way around the issue, or get over it, or something, eventually. I have to! I love the genre so much, and have so many ideas that I itch to share with the broader community, that I'll publish eventually. I just have to figure out how to do it, where my ideas can stand up on their own, as well as survive comparison to other great authors. If that means developing writing skills comparable to those of Niven, of Asimov, Heinlein, Dick, Anderson, Drake, Pratchett, and a host of other of my favorites, then so be it.

A meeting of the minds...or not...

2007-07-01T14:03:00.000-07:00

What's in a name? 'Parallel Minds'...kinda brainy sounding, kinda geeky...but what does it mean? The thing about parallel lines is, they never 'meet' (in Euclidian geometry, anyway...try to stay with me here...). You may be familiar with the old euphemism, 'they came to a meeting of the minds', in which the parties involved somehow arrive at a shared consensus and mutual understanding. They got together, talked it over, and found enough shared thoughts between them that they could use as the basis of an agreement.

After over thirty years of life as an oddball outsider, I can say with confidence that this whole 'meeting of the minds' thing is, for me at least, a load of crap. Now, I'm not a social misfit -- I know the spoken and unspoken social rules that govern our interactions with one another, and abide by them...well, most of them. I can behave, and interpret behavior, and in general, get by. But inside my head, there's an entire alien ecosystem producing those behaviors in emulation mode. It works -- pretty well most of the time, actually -- but doesn't come naturally, is what I'm getting at. I'm not unpredictable, either. Quite the opposite, actually. I just don't think the way others seem to think. It can produce some pretty hilarious misunderstandings, and some not-so-hilarious. It insulates me from the mediocrity of pop culture, but also prevents me from ever really connecting to the people who thrive there.

That can be good -- sometimes I see things, have insights, that nobody else picks up. That can be bad -- sometimes (actually, more like often) I miss things, miss insights, that most everybody else seems to get. It's like my mind is running on a parallel track to the rest of society, and while eventually we all arrive in the same place, and travel through the same countryside, the thoughts and ideas riding in my train have only passing familiarity with the passengers on the other trains. They wave to the thoughts and ideas on the other trains through open windows, futilely exchanging incomprehensible greetings and gossip with them above the noise of engines, of rushing wind, and wheels on tracks. On the other trains, observers near the windows ask, "What is he saying?" The guys at the window shrug. "Beats me!" And then wave harder and smile broader, cluelessly yet doggedly polite.

So now you know why 'parallel'. So what? Thing is, doing things in parallel can be incredibly useful. In computers, there are often parallel chips that perform special useful functions. They aren't anywhere near as good at the 'normal' things that the regular chips do, but for their specialized functions, they absolutely rock. They know just enough about what 'normal' chips can do, so that they can communicate and share work. The computer overall becomes much faster and more capable, because these two very different chips are running in parallel.

That's what this blog is for. Here is where I publish my own insights and thinking, the 'work' I perform as a social creature, for all you 'normal' people to use, if you can. Sharing this way can make us overall richer for the experience. Or not -- it's up to you; I'll post it either way. Whatever ends up happening, this blog is primarily a place for me to vent, to create, to cast in words the artifacts that emerge from my stream of consciousness, and preserve them intact. If what you find here seems kind of weird and nonsensical, well, you've been warned, so get over it.

So welcome to this 'non meeting' of the minds. If you see anything you like or agree with, it's probably coincidence. If you see anything you don't like, or don't agree with, probably coincidence too. Either way, insofar as it is possible, enjoy.

Thanks.