I hazard to make the statement that Life is a study on contentment. A study in which many, many of the subjects are failing. Why? Because I don't have... I want... I'm not... It's not fair...
So really, what does it mean to be content?
Is it a thing that is subject to the perception of an individual?
Is there a standard of contentment of some kind?
Perhaps that is not the point.
All the newest and best Things are never going to be enough, because there's always Thing 2.0 coming out in a few months. There's always Halo 7. Playstation 10. Xbox 1-2-Many. And on and on. But how does one become content, especially in a world where it seems like practically EVERYONE is practicing discontentment?
The Answer: I don't know. I certainly haven't been able to find contentment yet. There are times that I've thought I have, but, true to form, it just wasn't right. Wasn't enough. And on.
But on the flip side of it, what about the other alternative to contentment?
To be complacent.
To "have all that one needs" and yet not do anything, be anything, strive....
How often do we find ourselves there? Perhaps not so often, if we can't become content in the first place.
But how does one acheive contentment when, on one side, everyone is falling into the pit of despair and Desire, and the other half is "content" to do nothing more with their lives?
I think I've set on that side too long. Perhaps I have been "content". I'd hazard to say that I've been happy, even... But happy in what? Happy in something that could be stripped away? Happy in something that could be lost? And when that time comes, and those things are gone, where is my happiness?
Gone.
I think my contentment needs to have a new source. An Old Source, if you want to argue semantics. A source that I have tried, and failed, to stay close to so many times in my life.
I want hope. I want happiness. I want contentment. And not by earthly means.
I want You.
Take this withered heart of mine and make it new.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Why?
So on my almost-daily venture to Caribou Coffee for my almost-daily bout of attempted creativity and otherwise not-having-a-job-ness, there was a man standing on the corner of a major intersection I was going through, and he was holding a large sign with large print that said: "WHY?"
Now, my immediate response to this particular situation (if I was quick-witted enough, and it hadn't been relatively early in the morning (Noonish)) I would have driven past him and cried out my window: "WHY NOT?"
This got a good chuckle out of both my family, some of my friends, some of the Caribou employees.... and then I promptly forgot about it.
Today, in a similar day of not-having-a-job-ness, another man came in for coffee who was holding the same sign. And this time I actually stopped to think about it. 'Why'. An otherwise horrible product or advertisement placing, based on the fact that there was no other explanation of the sign, and it's entirely impossible for one to just stop real quick and ask what the sign is for. Busy intersections are rarely good for that sort of idiocy. So regardless of whatever company, product, ideal, or cause that this sign is standing for, I got to thinking about it.
WHY?
Such a small word, and yet it can bring about the entire downfall of lives, beliefs, faiths. It shakes the steadfastness of the strong and undermines the roots of the immovable, does it not?
WHY?
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Why am I here on this earth?
Why am I not succeeding?
Why is God not speaking to me?
Why is God NOT THERE?
Why, Why, WHY!?
And when a person who truly does have hope in something is posed this question....
"I don't know." "I can't know."
And no answer is good enough to 'why'. Because the question 'Why?' so often comes from the disposition of desperation, weakness, or weariness. And almost no answer can answer enough.
No answer can completely soothe or calm or help.
But that is not to say there's no reason to try. Is not the question "why?" precisely what we must be prepared for? 'To give a reason for the hope that we have'?
It just got me thinking. Maybe it can get you thinking too.
How long will we stand on the street corners with our "God Hates Fags" signs, until we realize that our time is being sorely WASTED on HATING. No... God Hates Haters.
And the Haters aren't answering the questions "WHY?"
Which is the question that destroys.
Now, my immediate response to this particular situation (if I was quick-witted enough, and it hadn't been relatively early in the morning (Noonish)) I would have driven past him and cried out my window: "WHY NOT?"
This got a good chuckle out of both my family, some of my friends, some of the Caribou employees.... and then I promptly forgot about it.
Today, in a similar day of not-having-a-job-ness, another man came in for coffee who was holding the same sign. And this time I actually stopped to think about it. 'Why'. An otherwise horrible product or advertisement placing, based on the fact that there was no other explanation of the sign, and it's entirely impossible for one to just stop real quick and ask what the sign is for. Busy intersections are rarely good for that sort of idiocy. So regardless of whatever company, product, ideal, or cause that this sign is standing for, I got to thinking about it.
WHY?
Such a small word, and yet it can bring about the entire downfall of lives, beliefs, faiths. It shakes the steadfastness of the strong and undermines the roots of the immovable, does it not?
WHY?
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Why am I here on this earth?
Why am I not succeeding?
Why is God not speaking to me?
Why is God NOT THERE?
Why, Why, WHY!?
And when a person who truly does have hope in something is posed this question....
"I don't know." "I can't know."
And no answer is good enough to 'why'. Because the question 'Why?' so often comes from the disposition of desperation, weakness, or weariness. And almost no answer can answer enough.
No answer can completely soothe or calm or help.
But that is not to say there's no reason to try. Is not the question "why?" precisely what we must be prepared for? 'To give a reason for the hope that we have'?
It just got me thinking. Maybe it can get you thinking too.
How long will we stand on the street corners with our "God Hates Fags" signs, until we realize that our time is being sorely WASTED on HATING. No... God Hates Haters.
And the Haters aren't answering the questions "WHY?"
Which is the question that destroys.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Viva la Vida...
So the lyrics to this one make me think a little bit...
I hear Jerusalem bells a ringin'
Roman Cavalry choirs are singin'
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
You probably all know the song as well... It's off of Coldplay's most recent album, sharing the title of this song as well. So I wonder what kind of implication is being made... Check out the full lyrics and give me thoughts?
Parallel to Christ?
Belief of disbelief in the above?
"I know St. Peter won't call my name"....?
Lyrics intrigue me sometime.... and I'd love to figure out just what kind of thought was behind the writing of this one. Not that I'm critical in any way..... Just dreadfully curious :)
I hear Jerusalem bells a ringin'
Roman Cavalry choirs are singin'
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
You probably all know the song as well... It's off of Coldplay's most recent album, sharing the title of this song as well. So I wonder what kind of implication is being made... Check out the full lyrics and give me thoughts?
Parallel to Christ?
Belief of disbelief in the above?
"I know St. Peter won't call my name"....?
Lyrics intrigue me sometime.... and I'd love to figure out just what kind of thought was behind the writing of this one. Not that I'm critical in any way..... Just dreadfully curious :)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Kierkegaard, the Villainous Philosopher?
So when it comes to philosophy and theology, I'm a sucker. It's true. Can't you tell just by the title of the blog?
I'm reading a book titled "Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul" as a sort of character study for my writing. When it comes to writing a deep, rich character/hero, who better to study than The most conflicted, intricate hero (or dare I say antihero) in all comic history?
So my path goes from this to that, from the book to wikipedia, to philosophers, and I recalled my desire to read some of the works by Soren Kierkegaard. One of the biggest concepts he has come up with was involved in one of my classes: That the true flow of worship should be from the congregation (the 'performers') to God (the Audience (of One)) with leadership by those on the platform (the 'prompters'). And something came into my mind as I was reading a little bit about Kierkegaard. He was a Christian, a pastor even, but my vague memories of learning about Kierkegaard plaster the world "existentialist" all over him, and plant him in the same circle as Hegel (whom he dismissed in one of his works) Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre. Perhaps I'm missing a few vital memories, in which we redeem the purpose for which Kierkegaard was writing.... but I still get the feeling that the name Kierkegaard has ever been synonymous with the words "existentialism" and "cult philosophy".
So I wanted to look at one of the main thoughts that wikipedia vaguely covers, and think about how that thought is, or might be, redeemable as continued 'good thought'.
The Leap of Faith. Ah, yes, the scene that we've all watched in youth group when discussing faith. "You must believe, boy... You must... believe." - Henry Jones Sr. And in a most astounding and logic defying action, Indiana steps from the 'Lion's Head' and finds his faith rewarded by solid ground, hidden against the backdrop of the chasm. Quote, Wikipedia: "The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt."
And interesting thought... To have the faith to believe in God is to, at the same time, be forced to deal with the doubt that God might not exist. And believe nonetheless. The doubt of God's existence is the rational part of a human person's mind. I go on to quote: "For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God."
So did we get stuck on the fact that Kierkegaard would enfer that to have faith in God, you must also doubt the fact that God exists? Or at least, overcome the doubt that God exists? I think that many times, I don't appreciate the fact that there is the possibility that God doesn't exist, as the human mind rationally works. My faith is so habitual, so 'without-a-doubt' that I don't appreciate the battle that a person must go through in their mind to believe in Christianity, after following the tenants of, say, non-theism. In this regard, maybe this is one of the reasons that faith seems to be so 'dead' in Christians today. When one grows up in, or spends a significant amount of their life in church, the absurdity of it all can very well dissipate. Now, as Christians, many of us have received some sort of affirmation that God, in fact, exists. This might be something termed as 'providence' or 'blessing' beyond human or natural means. Or it might be as important as literally hearing or seeing God. When this sort of thing punctuates our faith, then it is easier to continue believing.
But what if the other 70% of your congregation has not heard, seen, or been changed/touched by God in any way, shape, or form? It's easy to pick out the people for which church has become "the thing you do on Sunday morning" and nothing more. Habitual. I wonder if a brief reminder to our fellow brothers and sisters might be necessary - "Hey, you believe in someone who, by all human faculties, doesn't actually exist!" Might this stir an amount of fervor from our tired and habitual congregations? Or would this force a reevaluation of belief that would leave some truly questioning the faith that they thought they had?
I don't know... human beings act different ways...
To a degree, I do agree with what Kierkegaard say: that I have to remember that by faith is not based on any empirical evidence. Perhaps that may strengthen my faith all the more, especially when I receive something outside of empirical evidence that leads me to believe, more fervently, that God exists. In this light, I feel like one must take the occasional opportunity to question one's faith, so that in the end it will become all the stronger for it. Introspection, as Kierkegaard talks about. A vital part of a person's life.
Now I don't want to sound like I'm professing TRUTH to anyone. I'm just working through this in my own head as well. I think that maybe the aspect of 'mysticism' that Christianity is supposed to contain also involves the thought that our object and subject of worship is, by all empirical methods of evaluation, non-existent. I don't know about you, but I feel like it should make us excited when physical or situational proof arises of God or His work. I think I've noticed my Pastor thinking the same thing - somewhat pushing at the congregation to give a true measure of joy, instead of a polite golf-clap, when three souls are saved from eternal damnation!
So in light of reading this... what does one do? Perhaps a gentle, careful, introspection is necessary to strengthen your faith by remembering that you belief despite the lack of any proof. Recall that, even if empirical evidence has concluded that God does not exist, He has worked in your life somehow. Think of how and when that was. Then thank Him for His existence.
I end with a thought: "You have to take a step of faith. And when you do, you either discover something to stand upon, or you learn to fly."
Post-script: Again... I don't claim wisdom, nor truth. Only thought. Challenge me. Question me. Rebuke me. I want to grow as well :)
I'm reading a book titled "Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul" as a sort of character study for my writing. When it comes to writing a deep, rich character/hero, who better to study than The most conflicted, intricate hero (or dare I say antihero) in all comic history?
So my path goes from this to that, from the book to wikipedia, to philosophers, and I recalled my desire to read some of the works by Soren Kierkegaard. One of the biggest concepts he has come up with was involved in one of my classes: That the true flow of worship should be from the congregation (the 'performers') to God (the Audience (of One)) with leadership by those on the platform (the 'prompters'). And something came into my mind as I was reading a little bit about Kierkegaard. He was a Christian, a pastor even, but my vague memories of learning about Kierkegaard plaster the world "existentialist" all over him, and plant him in the same circle as Hegel (whom he dismissed in one of his works) Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre. Perhaps I'm missing a few vital memories, in which we redeem the purpose for which Kierkegaard was writing.... but I still get the feeling that the name Kierkegaard has ever been synonymous with the words "existentialism" and "cult philosophy".
So I wanted to look at one of the main thoughts that wikipedia vaguely covers, and think about how that thought is, or might be, redeemable as continued 'good thought'.
The Leap of Faith. Ah, yes, the scene that we've all watched in youth group when discussing faith. "You must believe, boy... You must... believe." - Henry Jones Sr. And in a most astounding and logic defying action, Indiana steps from the 'Lion's Head' and finds his faith rewarded by solid ground, hidden against the backdrop of the chasm. Quote, Wikipedia: "The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt."
And interesting thought... To have the faith to believe in God is to, at the same time, be forced to deal with the doubt that God might not exist. And believe nonetheless. The doubt of God's existence is the rational part of a human person's mind. I go on to quote: "For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God."
So did we get stuck on the fact that Kierkegaard would enfer that to have faith in God, you must also doubt the fact that God exists? Or at least, overcome the doubt that God exists? I think that many times, I don't appreciate the fact that there is the possibility that God doesn't exist, as the human mind rationally works. My faith is so habitual, so 'without-a-doubt' that I don't appreciate the battle that a person must go through in their mind to believe in Christianity, after following the tenants of, say, non-theism. In this regard, maybe this is one of the reasons that faith seems to be so 'dead' in Christians today. When one grows up in, or spends a significant amount of their life in church, the absurdity of it all can very well dissipate. Now, as Christians, many of us have received some sort of affirmation that God, in fact, exists. This might be something termed as 'providence' or 'blessing' beyond human or natural means. Or it might be as important as literally hearing or seeing God. When this sort of thing punctuates our faith, then it is easier to continue believing.
But what if the other 70% of your congregation has not heard, seen, or been changed/touched by God in any way, shape, or form? It's easy to pick out the people for which church has become "the thing you do on Sunday morning" and nothing more. Habitual. I wonder if a brief reminder to our fellow brothers and sisters might be necessary - "Hey, you believe in someone who, by all human faculties, doesn't actually exist!" Might this stir an amount of fervor from our tired and habitual congregations? Or would this force a reevaluation of belief that would leave some truly questioning the faith that they thought they had?
I don't know... human beings act different ways...
To a degree, I do agree with what Kierkegaard say: that I have to remember that by faith is not based on any empirical evidence. Perhaps that may strengthen my faith all the more, especially when I receive something outside of empirical evidence that leads me to believe, more fervently, that God exists. In this light, I feel like one must take the occasional opportunity to question one's faith, so that in the end it will become all the stronger for it. Introspection, as Kierkegaard talks about. A vital part of a person's life.
Now I don't want to sound like I'm professing TRUTH to anyone. I'm just working through this in my own head as well. I think that maybe the aspect of 'mysticism' that Christianity is supposed to contain also involves the thought that our object and subject of worship is, by all empirical methods of evaluation, non-existent. I don't know about you, but I feel like it should make us excited when physical or situational proof arises of God or His work. I think I've noticed my Pastor thinking the same thing - somewhat pushing at the congregation to give a true measure of joy, instead of a polite golf-clap, when three souls are saved from eternal damnation!
So in light of reading this... what does one do? Perhaps a gentle, careful, introspection is necessary to strengthen your faith by remembering that you belief despite the lack of any proof. Recall that, even if empirical evidence has concluded that God does not exist, He has worked in your life somehow. Think of how and when that was. Then thank Him for His existence.
I end with a thought: "You have to take a step of faith. And when you do, you either discover something to stand upon, or you learn to fly."
Post-script: Again... I don't claim wisdom, nor truth. Only thought. Challenge me. Question me. Rebuke me. I want to grow as well :)
Sunday, August 10, 2008
A Creative Sparkle in a Muse-less Mind
So it has been quite awhile since I've felt "the Muse upon me" as regards my writing. I have had little thoughts here and there, but nothing excellent and certainly nothing that I've turned into text on paper. Just thoughts. But one particular thought has been circling my brain for hours, days, weeks..
An archenemy. A nemesis.
Among many others, I was sucked into the craziness of seeing The Dark Knight on its opening at midnight. I was awestruck at the new interpretation of The Joker that was presented - an ancient, pre-existing enemy that has been deemed the "quintessential bad guy of all time", reimagined in such a brilliant way. The thing that drew my attention was the relationship between Joker and Batman. "Two sides of the same coin" it has been said. "You complete me," Joker says. "You need me," I believe he says in another situation. And for all the evil that Joker inflicts upon Batman and Gotham, our protaganist even saves his life once! Despite the fact that Joker "dies" several times, yet keeps coming... the concept of a hero having a necessary nemesis is huge here.
I need a nemesis. Not some evil character who directs hordes of minions and sits comfortably on a throne of evilness somewhere.... A rival who gets down and dirty in his evil. For all his peons, Joker gets personally involved with everything, in direct conflict with Batman. I mean, currently disregarding the fact that he's out of his mind (assumably) and has no rhyme or reason... he is a personal villain. The evil shadow of the good hero - and shadows follow you everywhere.
The villain who doesn't have "trusted minions" and does his own dirty work for himself. Uses the "tools" (aka people) necessary to do his will, and then drops them or kills them afterward. Think the whole intro scene to the movie. And think about the fact that it is Joker, personally, who is firing the rocket launcher during the chase. He needs no one, except the person he is anti-hero to. So I need a nemesis who is the personal rival of my hero... the thorn in his side... the other side of his coin.
And thinking of Alfred's quote, I think it sums up the kind of person I need to find in my imagination:
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
An archenemy. A nemesis.
Among many others, I was sucked into the craziness of seeing The Dark Knight on its opening at midnight. I was awestruck at the new interpretation of The Joker that was presented - an ancient, pre-existing enemy that has been deemed the "quintessential bad guy of all time", reimagined in such a brilliant way. The thing that drew my attention was the relationship between Joker and Batman. "Two sides of the same coin" it has been said. "You complete me," Joker says. "You need me," I believe he says in another situation. And for all the evil that Joker inflicts upon Batman and Gotham, our protaganist even saves his life once! Despite the fact that Joker "dies" several times, yet keeps coming... the concept of a hero having a necessary nemesis is huge here.
I need a nemesis. Not some evil character who directs hordes of minions and sits comfortably on a throne of evilness somewhere.... A rival who gets down and dirty in his evil. For all his peons, Joker gets personally involved with everything, in direct conflict with Batman. I mean, currently disregarding the fact that he's out of his mind (assumably) and has no rhyme or reason... he is a personal villain. The evil shadow of the good hero - and shadows follow you everywhere.
The villain who doesn't have "trusted minions" and does his own dirty work for himself. Uses the "tools" (aka people) necessary to do his will, and then drops them or kills them afterward. Think the whole intro scene to the movie. And think about the fact that it is Joker, personally, who is firing the rocket launcher during the chase. He needs no one, except the person he is anti-hero to. So I need a nemesis who is the personal rival of my hero... the thorn in his side... the other side of his coin.
And thinking of Alfred's quote, I think it sums up the kind of person I need to find in my imagination:
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Friday, August 8, 2008
A Re-evaluation of Direction
Looking back on the pathway that I have taken to bring me to this point in my life reveals some interesting things to me. When I was about the graduate high school, I didn't know what I was going to do with my life. The only thing I had expressed interest in was animation for movies or games. Just so happened that there was only one private school that sounded like they offered something like that... and once I was accepted, my direction completely changed.
I feel like there are times in our lives when we are "called" or drawn or impressed to do things purely for the reason that they will lead you to something else. Case in point, above, using computer animation to bring me to IWU. But I think that once that happens in your life, you start to expect it. Maybe make it into an excuse for the pathway that you start to choose for yourself. An example of this is that I would never have been involved in the theatre program at school if it had not been for my major including some of their classes. But perhaps in total overcorrection, I believed that I had been drawn to IWU to get involved in a major that would draw me to a completely different career path... and there you go.
But then, as paths of our lives seem to do, I was drawn back to the thing that I actually went to school for. I am learned in this far more than I am "experienced" at technical theatre... though it is a very strong asset to have. In all my planning, all my scheming to get me to Chicago and struggle as a starving artist/tech and "live the theatre dream", I was going by my strength as a man. Thankfully, I awoke to a phrase that drew me back to what I believe I am supposed to be doing:
"The plans of Man shall fail."
Though I find myself in a place where I am completely unsure of what I am supposed to do, or where I'm supposed to go... I trust. I have faith that I will be taken to the place that God wants me. My plans will fail. And He has plans for me. Always has.
You too. He's got something for you, whether you see it or not. Whether you believe it or not. You are important. You have a purpose.
I feel like there are times in our lives when we are "called" or drawn or impressed to do things purely for the reason that they will lead you to something else. Case in point, above, using computer animation to bring me to IWU. But I think that once that happens in your life, you start to expect it. Maybe make it into an excuse for the pathway that you start to choose for yourself. An example of this is that I would never have been involved in the theatre program at school if it had not been for my major including some of their classes. But perhaps in total overcorrection, I believed that I had been drawn to IWU to get involved in a major that would draw me to a completely different career path... and there you go.
But then, as paths of our lives seem to do, I was drawn back to the thing that I actually went to school for. I am learned in this far more than I am "experienced" at technical theatre... though it is a very strong asset to have. In all my planning, all my scheming to get me to Chicago and struggle as a starving artist/tech and "live the theatre dream", I was going by my strength as a man. Thankfully, I awoke to a phrase that drew me back to what I believe I am supposed to be doing:
"The plans of Man shall fail."
Though I find myself in a place where I am completely unsure of what I am supposed to do, or where I'm supposed to go... I trust. I have faith that I will be taken to the place that God wants me. My plans will fail. And He has plans for me. Always has.
You too. He's got something for you, whether you see it or not. Whether you believe it or not. You are important. You have a purpose.
Here's the kickoff... Hope you're not sick of...
My mind tries to work in profound and deep sorts of ways, and I thought I would make a place where I could dump my thoughts, both short and long, for inspiration, conversation, or whatever else you might take from me.
So here is.
So here is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)