At home within yourself

Emma Watson is in the news again, and as usual it’s not for anything particularly controversial. But she did say something interesting and worth focusing in on a bit:

“People are like: ‘Where are you living? What are you doing?’ I don’t know,” she told Elle Australia for its May cover story. “I’m too young to decide right now if I want to live here or in New York or in LA or wherever else. And I really struggled for the answers the past three years. I should really know! I should really commit!'”

With the future unclear, Watson admitted, “I was like ‘I need to find a way to always feel safe and at home within myself’. Because I can never rely on a physical place.”

So, she got certified last year to teach yoga and meditation, something that anchors her crazy life, Watson said.

I’m basically a home-body, and I’m not sure I even “feel safe and at home within myself”. So if she’s managed that, that could very well explain why she seems much more grounded and in control than many of her peers. I can certainly see how traveling as much as she likely does could help you forget who you are and what matters most to you. Good for her if she’s found a way to stay grounded wherever she is.

I think whether she realizes it or not she’s said something rather profound. Ultimately the only real home any of us have is our body. If we’re not comfortable with our own company no amount of home decorating, coccooning, or hand-selecting friends is going to help that. Sooner or later we’re alone with ourselves. If we don’t feel safe and at home there we’re in for a rough ride.

It would be lovely if I could now present The Answer on how to do that. Sorry. As I said before, I’m not sure I’m there yet myself. It’s something to work toward, though.

Posted in Random Musings | 2 Comments

Cognitive Assonance

All of us, to varying degrees, like to build an echo chamber. We like to surround ourselves with people who agree with us. I’m certainly no different. So when people recommend websites or blogs that represent my point of view I tend to go check them out. I won’t mention names, but I recently visited just such a site. For a few days I decided I liked it. The guy offers good, solid, hard-hitting arguments for things I believe in.

But after a few days I found myself wanting to visit less, or less enthusiastically. I finally went back there after close to a week’s absence and realized why my enthusiasm was waning so quickly. To quote Will Farrell in “Megamind”: Presentation! I was getting tired of the guy’s “voice”. He strikes me as self-righteous and sneering, which I’m pleased to say annoys me nearly as much when it’s someone I would otherwise agree with as when it’s someone I don’t.

I try to catch myself when I start getting that way. I’ve deep-sixed many a post because I realized I was getting a too worked up, too shrill. But I’m sure some have slipped through the cracks, and for that I apologize. It’s a short distance between confident and condescending, passionate and overbearing.

Open dialogue is a good and positive thing. Open lecturing, sneering, or mocking is not. We need to keep our rhetorical fingers out of one another’s eyes. I know, it’s tempting to fight fire with fire. But there are times when I believe victory is not worthwhile if you simply take the enemy’s place. Winning at any cost is not winning.

Posted in Random Musings | 1 Comment

The power of words

I don’t think there’s anything I could say as important, or that could start your week off better than this, so:

All I will say is this: Perhaps the world is in better hands than we fear.

Posted in Moments of Beauty, Random Musings | 1 Comment

Clean joke day!

Okay, everyone! Let’s hear your best clean joke!

Here’s mine:

There was a group of big-game hunters from various countries who had met through the years and become good friends to the point that they began going on expeditions together. Ian was from Great Britain, Sergei was from Russia, and Anton was from the Czech Republic. One day Ian read an article about the giant, man-eating kangaroos in Australia and got the idea it might be fun to go hunt some, so he called up Sergei and Anton and they made arrangements to take a safari in Australia to go hunt.

When they arrived in Australia they hired an Aboriginal guide, Collin, to help them find the best spot to hunt the giant, man-eating kangaroos. It took several days of travel through some of the most brutal terrain any of them had ever traversed, but they finally reached a spot about 1000 km south of Ayers Rock. Collin assured them there would be giant, man-eating kangaroos in the area, but they were quite sensitive and cunning, so they’d have to be very sneaky. They hunted all the first day and didn’t see a thing.

The second day they decided to split up. Sergei and Anton went one direction, while Ian went with Collin in the other. The Brit and the Aussie hunted for half the day with no luck, but not long after stopping for lunch they suddenly topped a rise, and there they were! A male and a female, at least ten feet tall, and looking as ferocious as lions! Collin, having dealt with them before, calmly brought up his rifle and snapped off a shot, catching the female a clean shot through the head. Ian, however, had never seen anything like them, and his hands shook as he fired. He missed the male kangaroo by six inches, and the creature leaped away like lightning before he could get off another shot.

Excited, the two men hurried over to the female kangaroo Collin shot and began cleaning the carcass. To their surprise, when they started to cut open the kangaroo’s belly, they found the Russian, Sergei, inside! “Well, that’d be ’bout right, wouldn’t it,” Collin muttered.

“What?” Ian asked.

“I’ll betcha the Czech’s in the male.”

—-

Okay, your turn! Revenge is sweet! One good pun deserves another!

Posted in Random Musings | 2 Comments

French horns for the win!

My brother played the french horn since junior high, and so I grew up having the french horn lines in music pointed out to me. Not that I mind. There’s nothing like a heroic french horn line. The gentlemen of Two Steps From Hell seem to understand this, too. Witness for the prosecution:

Winterspell – Listen at the 2:30 mark

Or this: Blackheart – Around the 2:30 mark and again around 3:30

Or Skyworld – Again around 2:30 in–what is it about 2:30?

Prosecution rests.

Posted in Random Musings | 18 Comments

Is empathy enough?

I recently saw a post on Facebook that got me thinking. It said, in essence, that religion is not necessary to be moral; all you need is empathy. I don’t necessarily disagree with the first part of that statement. People can develop a high level of morality without direct religious influence (good luck excluding all religious influence). I won’t contest that. But is empathy the key? The one and only key?

(It should be said that I am not saying anything against the person who made the post. Empathy is sorely needed in our interactions with others, and I doubt we can go too far wrong making it a key component in our lives. But I do feel it fair to look at whether empathy alone is any better a pattern for morality than anything else.)

Let’s start with definition. According to Dictionary.com, empathy is “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another”.

So can we assume we can define a moral code or system by identifying with or experiencing the feelings, thoughts or attitudes of another? I would suggest there is more required than that. Empathy makes no judgment, dictates no particular action. It simply experiences and identifies. I can identify with the feelings or thoughts of a clearly anti-social person, but that doesn’t mean I approve of those thoughts or the resultant actions, nor does it lead me to adopt them myself. One can empathize, yet be entirely repulsed by what they experience. Moral relativism is one possible result of empathy. If we take time to empathize with both sides of any issue or problem we may learn a great deal, but we will not necessarily determine the moral course.

Consider, after all, the story of “Les Miserables”. Jean Valjean is a criminal. He took something that did not belong to him. Certainly we can empathize with his reasons and rationalize his behavior. But if we employ empathy alone we might determine that stealing is moral. But is it? Was his theft of bread a victimless crime? Do we even know? Should we care? Employing the “empathy rule” we probably should. There are others involved in every action.

I don’t recall the circumstances, or if we are told anything about who the bread originally belonged to. Was it a wealthy baker? If so, it might be easy to assume it was a victimless crime. The baker should have given Valjean the bread! But what if the bread that was stolen was in the care of an apprentice baker who was blamed for the theft and expelled from his position? Not so victimless then, is it. What if the baker wasn’t so wealthy, and that one loaf of bread represented his profit margin for the day? Where is our empathy for the baker or his apprentice?

May I suggest that if we’re truly interested in establishing the morality of any given action we have to do a lot more digging than might appear on the surface of the matter. It’s never as simple as understanding the perspectives of one person, or even both direct parties. Each of those lives touches so many others we may never truly understand the true effect of a single action, no matter how much you may understand the reasons for it.

The alternate example, of course, is Inspector Javert, the hand of justice. In his mind there is no justification for breaking the law. To him Valjean’s theft of bread is no better or worse than the theft of the Crown Jewels, a man’s horse, or a sewing needle. Theft is theft. Breaking the law is not excusable, not forgivable. And he’s right. If we show empathy for his position it’s clear he has a very strong case. And yet empathy toward those he pursues suggests otherwise. Blind justice causes a great deal of pain. But the lack of justice can cause every bit as much pain.

With empathy as our sole guide I suspect we can at best determine that moral behavior really all depends on the circumstances, and that is not really much help in establishing a moral guide. I believe it should be clear to most readers of “Les Miserables” who, between Javert and Valjean, they would point to as the more moral man. It could also be said that empathy, or the lack of it, is Javert’s primary failing. That’s not necessarily true, though. His empathy likely lies entirely with the victims of crime, and while that is not entirely right, it’s certainly not entirely wrong.

Nor is empathy particularly far-seeing. Going simply by empathy we might believe that punishing our children for bad behavior is wrong. It causes them great emotional distress. It hurts their feelings. What a wave of negative emotion we unleash when we impose punishment, no matter how fair we feel it to be. And yet the long term consequences of not punishing bad behavior are too great to ignore. Empathy doesn’t care. Empathy simply sees what is.

And that is the point: empathy is too vague to use as the base of a moral system, even though any system that fails to at least include it is not likely to be successful, either. Empathy alone simply enlightens. It does not provide a clear moral guide. If you seek to establish an ideal morality we should all aspire to, more often than not empathy will get in the way. In the end it all comes back to the continual balance between justice and mercy.

I don’t think empathy alone is enough. Since I’m purposely limiting this to a philosophical viewpoint, I also don’t believe religion alone is enough, either. Some may argue whether or not a moral system that trumps all else is even possible, and I’d mostly agree–with our limited wisdom, experience, and understanding I don’t think we’d ever achieve one. But that should never stop us from trying to find the very best one we can. Empathy is not a bad place to start. Just don’t stop there.

Posted in Random Musings | 3 Comments

Looking forward to the old days

In church last Sunday we sat behind a young couple with two little girls, one about three, and the other less than a year. The infant is something of a charmer–not that I’m all that difficult to charm–and I flirted with her intermittently through the meeting. The older sister was the typical big sister, alternately scolding her little sister for making noise and stirring her up to make noise. It was a familiar scene; that might have been us ten years ago.

Ten years ago.

As cute as those little girls were, however, I don’t really want to go back. I like my kids the ages they are now. They’re not as adorably cute, perhaps, but they’re much more interesting–with all the accompanying negatives that can come with that, as well. But all-in-all, they’re good kids, and I can see how my wife and I are reaping what we have sown. Our kids are our kids; there’s no denying it. For better or worse they are, in part, what we have made them.

During our nightly walk Sunday night my wife reported similar thoughts from watching the same family. Neither of us would choose to go back to those young-kid days, even though they were, in many ways, simpler times. But we do find it a little distressing to realize that within the next ten to fifteen years we’ll likely be empty-nesters. That’s a bizarre concept. Who are with without kids?

One of the best parts of having older kids is their ability to fill in the gaps. My wife and I both have interests we don’t necessarily share. I like fantasy and sci-fi, be it books, movies, or games, for example. My wife prefers Westerns. No worries, we both love classic movies. But I am enjoying having kids old enough to appreciate many of the things I like. I have someone to discuss books and movies with. They help me get my gaming fix. I’m sure they fill a similar role for their mother.

That’s not to say they won’t game with me when they’ve grown, but they’ll be busy with their own families–and they should be. At some point my wife and I will discover we need to find some new things to do together, perhaps. It seems like forever since those early days of just her and me. What did we do with all that time we had?!

Not that I should get too concerned just yet. We’ve got at least another ten years, after all. But considering how quickly the first fifteen years have flown by, it’s not that far off. Weird. In many ways it seems as though my life began when I got married, even though my pre-married life was twice as long as my married life to this point.

I’m not entirely sure what the point of this post is–if there’s any point at all. Perhaps it’s just this: I can’t go back, even if I wanted to. But going forward is going to be bitter-sweet. If like is like a box of chocolates, then it’s mostly dark chocolate. I love my life, and so even though it’s occasionally good to check the horizon, I need to make sure I’m paying close attention to the moment. These moments are numbered.

Not that there’s nothing to look forward to. Quite the contrary; I’m sure the next phase of life will be every bit as interesting and rewarding. But I’ll get there whether I want to or not. No need to worry about that. Better to try to appreciate each day for the miracle it is.

Posted in Family, Random Musings | 3 Comments

More thoughts about God

This is another religious post, so if this sort of thing bothers you, try back tomorrow.

As I’ve mentioned before, if God were interested in settling the matter of His existence beyond debate He would have long ago. The lack of conclusive, irrefutable proof (as if there was such a thing–never underestimate the capacity of humanity to disbelieve) is deliberate and essential to God’s achieving the desired end. The time will come when that undeniable proof will be presented, but not yet. In the mean time it is up to us to choose what we will believe.

I believe in God.

Not just any god, mind you. I believe in God as described by the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe God is our father, and has been for time immeasurable. His work and passion is to help us progress. We have always existed as “intelligences”, but with the help of God, or Father in Heaven as we refer to Him most in our religion, we became defined and unique spiritual beings. But as spiritual beings in a physical universe, we had progressed as far as we could. To further our development God implemented a plan.

That plan called for the creations of a physical realm in which we could be given a physical body. An earth would be created or organized on which we could live. We all had some role in the creation of that world, under the guidance and power of God. But then, when all was ready, God called a vast meeting of all the spirits under his guardianship and explained His plan: Our coming to Earth would be a test. We would be subjected to all the temptations and weaknesses that accompany a physical body, and we would be expected to live according to the rules God gave us. To make it a fair test we would all have our memories of our previous existence blocked so that faith would be required. Those who passed the test and were obedient would be given the chance to continue learning and developing, and eventually (quite likely a very long eventually) become gods ourselves.

I know that part bothers a lot of people, but it’s never bothered me. I’m a father. My goal for my children is for them to equal or even exceed my own capabilities. It only makes sense to me that our Heavenly Father would want us to progress as far as we can, even if it’s not all the way to His level. And why would children of God not be able to become gods themselves? Don’t we inherit something of our parents’ potential?

But this plan has its down-side. Not everyone will pass the test. Some simply lack the capacity or the desire to become like God. To quote Stan Lee, with great power comes great responsibility. God, in His wisdom, recognizes that God-like power, coupled with God-like responsibility, is not for everyone, and He would not be a loving parent if he forced any of his children into a position they don’t want or can’t handle. Giving each of us the ability to choose for ourselves is all-important to God. He must love us all a great deal to be willing to go forward with such a plan, knowing what it would mean for many of his children–the end point of their progress.

But not all of us saw it this way. Lucifer, or Satan, didn’t like that particular plan and thought it unfair. He proposed his own plan–let us all come to Earth and gain mortal bodies, but he would force everyone to do what they were supposed to. He would make us all become gods, ready or not. And because it was his idea, and because he felt it was the better plan, he wanted to assume God’s place. He wanted God’s power and glory, but without having to work for it and prove himself worthy of it. He wasn’t alone. A third of God’s children agreed and followed Satan.

But Christ, so great and wise he had attained more knowledge and wisdom than any of the rest of us, stood up in favor of God’s plan and offered himself as leader and servant to the remaining two-thirds who wanted to follow God’s plan, even though it would mean being sacrificed for all of us. He would see the plan was put into place exactly as God wanted it, no matter what it would cost him personally.

We are told a war then took place in heaven, though we don’t know the exact nature of the conflict. Since we were not yet physical beings, it was probably not the stuff of Hollywood action movies, but we just don’t know. We do know, however, that Satan and those who followed him were cast out. They came to Earth, where they resolved to oppose Father in Heaven, and His son, Jesus Christ. If they couldn’t overthrow God they would do their best to drag as many of his other children down with them. Perhaps they hope that if they can get enough on their side they can still overthrow God.

But the plan went forward. God organized his remaining children, appointing each their turn to come to Earth. The work of accomplishing the plan was overseen by a council known as The Godhead, comprised of God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. In my religion we believe them to be three distinct beings, each with their own role in the plan.

The plan began with Adam and Eve. They were placed in something of a “holding pattern”, allowing for them to make the choice to begin the test. They were given conflicting directives. One on side they were to obey God, be fruitful and multiply, while lacking the knowledge to do so effectively. On the other side they were commanded not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, even though it would provide the knowledge they needed to accomplish the charge given them.

They might have remained stuck in this position indefinitely were it not for Satan’s influence. He explained things, using truth to mask the lies, to Eve, who made a very difficult choice, but one that allowed the Plan to go forward. She chose to eat the fruit and gain knowledge. Adam, seeing that through her choice it was no longer possible to be completely obedient, chose to stay with Eve and face the consequences together. Their choices marked the true beginning of the test. Man had proven the ability to choose for themselves–the greatest gift of God–and that they could be influenced by both God and Satan. Most importantly, they could now start providing bodies for the rest of us to begin coming down for our own turn.

Many religions look down on Eve for her decision, but our religion does not. Without her choice God’s plan would have been frustrated. God’s test could not go forward and be a fair test without that first step of choosing, even if it was contrary to God’s command. She, and ultimately Adam, chose to choose, if that makes any sense, rather than to continue avoiding making a choice. Yes, the world we all inherit is full of sorrow, pain, and heartache, but there is also great goodness, love, and happiness–neither can exist without the other. Opposition is key to the entire test. Eve made the right choice.

The complexity of just what occurred in the Garden of Eden is evidence that God must walk a very fine line. We often think of God as restrictive, but in truth no one is under more restriction than God. He must be completely just, completely obedient to the laws he places on himself. As the scriptures tell us, God must keep his word, must obey they laws He is bound by, or he ceases to be God. When there is absolutely nothing you can’t do, not doing certain things becomes very difficult. I’m not certain I understand it all myself, but it’s clear to me that it was very important that mankind’s choosing to distance ourselves from God and embrace the test was important–and that it had to be our choice, not His. Praise and adoration are due to Eve for making a very difficult choice, and also to Adam for recognizing his best path foward.

But now we are here, in a world where Satan holds great sway while God maintains a respectful distance. Ever the anxious parent, he stands ready to help us, but it must be our choice. We have to reach out to Him, and even when we do He doesn’t simply swoop in and do it all for us. No, the intent of this plan is to help us learn what we are capable of, help us learn to make the right choices, and allow us to suffer consequences when we don’t. Not that God has left us helpless. He sent Christ to be our savior, to provide himself as a sacrifice for our sins. We sin in our current mortal state, and that sin creates a debt to God that we cannot repay. But Christ paid that debt for us, and so in essence has bought us. He sets the new terms, and they are more merciful.

God, being God, must follow the demands of justice. If we sin we can’t return to him and cannot continue our progression. But Christ provides the means of obtaining mercy. When he marked paid to our accounts God and justice had no more claim. When judgment day comes we will be judged by how well we keep the terms that Christ has set for our contract with him. Those terms will be more generous, but still quite demanding. Christ is of the same mind as God, and their ultimate goal is to make sure each of us gains the opportunity for further progression that we are best suited for.

So that is the God I believe in. For many it is a source of great frustration in that He is not interested in settling the matter of His existence once and for all. For me, he is a kind, wise, and loving father who is bound by eternal truths beyond our knowledge and comprehension. His plan is much more comprehensive than simply what we do during this infinitismally small piece of eternity. He’s engaged in an effort of a scope beyond our ability to understand. He is a being of pure justice and pure mercy, perfectly walking the fine line between them. I believe many of the aspects that so many find annoying are essential components in achieving that balance.

This is, of course, just the beginning of what I could say about my beliefs. I believe in God, and I’ve begun to describe the God I believe in. At a later date I will explain why I believe in God.

Posted in Random Musings | Comments Off on More thoughts about God

Be positive, dagnabbit!

It seems when I’m under pressure to think of a topic to post about I can’t think of anything but things to gripe about. And I’m tired of griping. Yes, the world’s a rotten place sometimes, but if there’s nothing I can do about most of it, why can’t I just let it be and focus on my own immediate sphere of influence? My life is pretty darn good! Really! My problems are the kind that third-world people emigrate to this country to try and have! I mean, “I didn’t sleep well last night” is sure a lot better than “the local warlords thugs came and hauled off my father in the middle of the night and shot him.” Or “I woke up this morning with my country under new management.” (As wonderful as that might sound sometimes, there aren’t many governments I can think of which I would like waking up under the management of.)

My apricot trees are blooming, and it appears that the frost didn’t get to nearly as many of the flowers as I’d feared. Time will tell, but in the mean time they sure look pretty, and they smell wonderful!

My kids played some game involving ropes, the play gym slide, and a canvas yard-waste container for over an hour last night, and no one got hurt!

My wife made a baked oatmeal dish for breakfast that is really quite tasty. In fact, pretty much everything my wife makes is very good, and we have the resources to buy the foods we like.

My mom was able to come visit for a few days this week.

I have a job, money in the bank, a car that’s not dead yet, and a budget that most of the time balances.

I have friends who would notice if they didn’t hear from me for a week.

Without leaving my chair I have instant access to information and entertainment at levels unimaginable even fifteen years ago.

Indoor plumbing. I’m still a big fan.

Books.

So far all the “doomsday asteroids” have missed.

We have robots on distant planets sending back a flood of data and images, while our own world still presents us with frequent surprises.

Music.

I can write something in Utah and make someone happy half a world away.

I can buy a box, plug it into my wall, and have it generate invisible waves of energy–simply to heat up my food.

I carry a little box in my pocket that allows me to speak with someone anywhere in the world within seconds.

 

I could go on–and probably should–but I won’t. I’m feeling better already.

 

 

Posted in Gratitude, Random Musings | 2 Comments

Odd jobs

I came home from work tonight expecting to get ambushed when I walked in the door. My wife and youngest son were off to his tennis lesson, so I figured at least one of the other two would want me to play a game with them or something.

I was partly right. I did get jumped the moment I walked in. Except it was, “Dad, will you teach us HTML?”

My kids listen to me, just not when I’m expecting them to. They’ve evidently overheard me telling my wife about how I’m getting so much mileage out of my HTML skills at work. And, more recently, my daughter realized that my home-made home-page that comes up on my browser was made using HTML. I basically created a page of my favorite links, and set it as my homepage. It’s nothing special, really, but she suddenly decided she wanted to make one for herself.

That alone should make feel good as father. From both her and my middle child I got, “Teach me how to do it, Dad,” rather than, “Dad, will you do it for me?”.  My wife and I must be doing something right if they’re default mode is “I want to learn to do that myself.”

So tonight we had an impromptu lesson on HTML. I may have covered too much for one night, but that’s okay, I guess. Part of the idea was to show them what you can do with HTML. Not that I’m any expert on that. I just know the basics, and I look up the rest, or improvise.

It reminds me of someone I know, actually. My dad know a little about a lot of things. Using those basics he was able to improvise quite a lot. He could fix most things if given enough time. Somewhere along the lines he managed to pass a lot of that spirit, if not skill-set, along to me.

I read an article the other day that discussed a series of factors that would indicate whether you should buy a used home or build a new one. One factor was your handyman skills. If you’re not able to do basic maintenance tasks you’re better off buying a brand new home–and then moving again before things start to break. Us? We’ve never owned a house less than fifteen years old. It’s not that I enjoy fixing things–though sometimes I do–it’s just that I’ve never thought about doing things any other way. You don’t go out and buy something new unless you know for sure you can’t fix it. That’s just how my dad raised me.

So I’m glad to see that’s getting passed on to my kids. I like to think my dad would be pleased.

Posted in Random Musings | 2 Comments