Last day of 2012 with Stephen Covey

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.  We are spiritual beings having a human experience."
                          Teilhard de Chardin

(from Daily Reflections for Highly Effective People)

Great, or How I Rate Movies

Great

       This morning, I looked at the word great, as written later in this essay, and contemplated the spelling.  English is such a strange language.  I had never thought of it before, but if not for exceptional rules, the word might be pronounced gree-at.  Grate is obviously pronounced with a long a, but the pronunciation of great requires knowledge of a rule, an exception.

       The reason that I was thinking about the word great in the first place, is that it is the highest rating  in a system I have used for years to rate movies I see.   I have not chronicled the movie ratings.  Actually, I am only interested in identifying the Great ones.  The reason I was thinking about movie ratings is that my wife and I, and our best friends—and movie going partners—saw a movie last night, which we (typically) disagreed on what we thought of it, our tastes varying significantly.

       The film, Anna Karinina, was labeled Great, by me, on the spot, which is unusual because it is usually the next day before I can bring myself to award this highest acclamation.  The others, of course, disagreed.

       So, below, excerpted from an article I wrote for my church on “What Is a Great Ministry”, is a description of my personal movie rating system:

      A system for rating movies that I have used for years is:

                1.     Great

                2.     Excellent

                3.     Good

                4.     Fair

                5.     Awful

                6.     Not worth seeing for $1.00 or for Free.

       A Great movie is so good that a rating of Excellent does not describe how positive and excited you feel about it. 

       An Excellent movie is one you come out of saying, “That was Great,” but the quality or admirable characteristics don’t seem (feel) like it deserves the highest accolade, which is Great.  You know what Great feels like, and this is not it; close, but not it.

       What constitutes a Great movie is different for most individuals.  For me, it would contain some deep psychological principle, usually not disclosed until the end.  A classic example is when Scout sees Boo Radley behind the door in Jim’s room, and identifies him as the man who stabbed Bob Ewell, thus saving her and Jim’s lives (To Kill A Mockingbird, 1962).  Although Scout has never seen him and reports of his appearance are grossly distorted, she simply says, “Hey, Boo.”  As soon as the rest of us catch up with what’s going on, we begin crying “tears of joy”.  “Tears of joy,” is another characteristic that might identify, or differentiate, Great from Excellent.

       So what is a Great movie?  When we see it, when we experience it, if we are interested and agonize over the answer, we know whether it is Excellent or Great because, . . . well,

. . . because we know.

Bible Scholasticism

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

         This morning, for a change, my creative juices are flowing in a positive direction, although some might interpret these thoughts as negative.  The subject, once again, is the Bible and the contention that those who view it as inerrant, infallible or literal, do so at the expense of distorting the message, the true meaning of the most precious “Word of God”.

         The contention, mine of course, is shared by a multitude of real scholars—real scholar being defined as one who approaches the study of the literary and historic aspects of this all time best selling book, without the prejudices or bias of believers seeking proof that their interpretation is true.  Those believers who claim to be unbiased in their scholastic study of the Bible, who claim that their scholars do not have a predisposing prejudice, are unaware of the definition of the word “bias” when applied to areas of research and statistics.

         The debate over truth, authenticity and history of the Bible with inerrant, infallible believers is futile.  Every question, every challenge can be met, legitimately, to them, by reverting to their principle that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and therefore cannot be interpreted any other way despite irrationality, mythical resemblance, contradictions, scientifically obtained information demonstrating knowledge of true authorship, and changes made during decades and centuries of oral tradition, and proof of changes made by a multiplicity of interpretations or whims of scribes.  Scribes were people who could read and write who penned the original and copied the “Word of God in biblical and pre-modern times.

         When an inerrant believer cherry picks a Bible passage to challenge a true, modern student, a common practice is to ask of the student (for whom the passage does not contain immutable information for either side), “What are you going to do, tear that page out of the Bible?”  The student’s response is that the believer has transformed this beautiful Word into an image of worship, an engraved image, in direct violation of the second commandment, and in so doing has exalted the sacred text into impotent meaninglessness. (Talk about inflaming them, that statement will take them over the top).

         What’s left for the believer is their belief in magic, acceptance of obvious mythological analogies as literally true, and rejection of any theory or proof of the results of true scholasticism which question any fundamentalist view of any book, any verse, any author which are available to be rightfully studied by a legitimate, contemporary scholar of the Bible.

         The charismatic literalist does not understand that it is his approach, his dogmatic insistence of being right about things not believable to logical people, is what’s driving people away from the church today. Fundamentalism builds a blockade that keeps modern man from finding and knowing the real, living Jesus.

         Are these thoughts negative?  Depends on which side you are on—truth, or being right.

In defense of "alright"

I use “alright” only as the first word of a sentence followed by a comma.  As such it is an interjection for which all the definitions of “all right” do not apply.  It is used in dialogue implying a southern colloquial dialect.

My characters will, on occasion, begin a sentence with the word "alright", "now", "okay" or "well".  The word serves no grammatical propriety; it’s just the way they talk.

Definition of ALL RIGHT**

1: satisfactory, agreeable<whatever you decide is all right with me>
2: safe, well<he was ill but he's all right now>
3: good, pleasing--often used as a generalized term of approval<an all right guy>

Definition of ALRIGHT**

: all right

Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT**           The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing

** Mirriam-Webster  m-w.com

Quote: British philosopher Herbert Spencer

“There is a principle 

  which is a bar against all information, 

   which is proof against all arguments, and 

    which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- 

     that principle is:

     contempt prior to investigation”

The Subway Violinist

THE SITUATION

  

In Washington, DC, at a Metro Station, on a cold January morning in 2007, a man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, approximately 2,000 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.  After about 3 minutes, a middle-aged man noticed that there was a musician playing.  He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds, and then he hurried on to meet his schedule. 

About 4 minutes later:  The violinist received his first dollar.  A woman threw money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk. 

   

At 6 minutes:  A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again. 

  

At 10 minutes: A 3-year old boy stopped, but his mother tugged him along hurriedly.  The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head the whole time.  This action was repeated by several other children, but every parent - without exception - forced their children to move on quickly.

At 45 minutes: The musician played continuously.  Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while.  About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.

After 1 hour:  He finished playing and silence took over.  No one noticed and no one applauded.  There was no recognition at all. 

No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world.  He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars.  Two days before, Joshua Bell sold-out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100 each to sit and listen to him play the same music.

This is a true story.  Joshua Bell, playing incognito in the D.C. Metro Station, was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people’s priorities. 

This experiment raised several questions: 

 *In a common-place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty? 

 *If so, do we stop to appreciate it? 

 *Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this: 

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made . . .. 

  

How many other things are we missing as we rush through life? 

Enjoy life NOW .. it has an expiration date

Passive-aggressive (Poem)

            Passive-Aggressive Kind of Guy

Well, you know, somebody’s got to say something,

You just can’t turn and look away,

Well, if nobody’s got the guts to say anything,

Hell, I ain’t bashful, just get outta my way!

Well, you know somebody’s gotta say somethin’,

Someone’s gotta step right up to the plate,

I’ll show ’em I’m not just a country bumpkin,

Hell, it don’t bother me and this can’t wait!

Well, you know somebody’s gotta say somethin’,

We gotta let everybody know that “We don’t play”,

When they need to know we don’t put up with nothing”

Why, I like to jump right into the fray!

Well, . . . I guess that you could say I’m a little shy,

OK, . . . maybe I don’t always speak my mind,

I may be a passive-aggressive kind of guy.

Alright, I admit.  I’m the total introvert kind.

The Music Box (Poem)

       The Music Box

Got to make the music fit

   into the music box,

notes that must go round and round,

  engineered just like clocks.

Our Success depends on whether

 notes will fit within the measure.

Notes you play will then in kind,

 have to coincide in time,

 tension that’s defined by key,

 then resolution sets us free.

Around the music box I see

 that resonance was made for me.

Mathematicians put it thus:

Pythagoras will stagger us.

Into the music box we’ve got

To make the music fit,

Without mathematics balancing,

I’m just a music hypocrite.

Black

     In 1968 DeKalb College was a hub for the peace movement, civil rights movement and the free love generation.  I was a few years removed from these activities, having returned home from the military a few years older than most students. A wife and baby made a difference, also.

       Imagine my surprise to find these words written on the bathroom walls: Niggers, Honkies and Jews- which became a working title for my freshman public speaking class. My white seriousness about prejudice and discrimination issues astounded my classmates. The last line of that speech was, “Don’t give me any ax handle waving Lester Maddox, nor any Bible totin’ Hosea Williams.  I choose not to discriminate!” 

       How passionate,  . . . and how naive.  

       It has been 39 years since Maynard Jackson was elected Atlanta’s first black Vice Mayor.  Sounds funny, doesn’t it? It sounds like there was a government position in Atlanta called the Black Vice Mayor.

Maynard Jackson was not only the first, but also the last, person to be elected to the position of Black Vice Mayor. The position was subsequently called Vice Mayor. The Atlanta City Government later created a position for Maynard Jackson designated the ‘Black Mayor’.

       You may dismiss these descriptions as mere semantic antics, and also reject the concept which they put forth.  But you should be warned. It is not as simple as black and white.  It is as complicated as black and white.

      When Maynard Jackson was elected Vice Mayor, I wrote a paper because I was distressed that the Atlanta Newspaper had created so sharp a division on their front page in reporting the election.  Like the ink and the paper it was written on, the AJC’s coverage of Maynard Jackson’s first election succinctly divided the city’s population into black and white.

       As a native and lifelong resident of the Atlanta area, I was an experiential witness to inhumane discrimination and segregation of negros, colored people and blacks as I grew up in the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s.  Now a white convert to non-violence via Selma on TV, and a disciple of Dr. King, I have tried to find a way, in our society, to not discriminate.  I choose to not discriminate.  But it is very hard to do in a world where we are so intent on having a reportable dividing line between black and white.

       Then there was Roots.  What a phenomenon!  How could I deprive blacks of their rich heritage and history just because my moral conscience wanted to ignore the fact that they were black.  In my original essay on Maynard Jackson, I brought out the characteristics of his skin and facial features, including eye color, all clearly Caucasian.  I removed those paragraphs later because I found them distasteful.  But then the arrival of Barack Obama begged the same questions.

       The Saturday, Oct. 25, 2008, AJC reports the staggering number of voters taking advantage of the ability to vote early in the 2008 historical presidential election.  These record breaking numbers were not sufficient for the story, not without a report of the ‘demographics’ of the voters.  ‘Demographics’ means how can we divide ourselves? How can we preserve the separateness of black and white?  How can we quantify and thereby perpetuate black and white? 

President Obama chooses to be black, but how can he?  Are not his genes bi-racial?  How can he be black and not white?  How is it fair to either race for him to choose one or the other?  How can he be black?  How can he be white?  So, if he cannot choose one race, at the exclusion of the other, what race is he?

       Oh, the absurdity of it. When can we let it go? When will we be able to accept that there is no race- but one race to which all men and women belong.  We are the human race.  But can we ever dispose of differentiation and be able to not discriminate.

        God truly inspired the dedication of Dick Gregory’s autobiography to his mother.   The profundity of his concept for titling the book was a gift from God. The book’s title was not ‘N-word’. We should not euphemize the ugliness of the word nor de-emphasize the need to totally eradicate it from our language. If we stopped granting an exemption for the connotation of affection when blacks use the word ‘nigger’ to refer to each other, it would help excise this cancer and purge its malignancy from the human vernacular, and the day might come that it is never heard from any human tongue.

       What prophetic new concept could have a chance to affect those who profane themselves by the affectionate use of the most catastrophic word in our vocabulary? Who could advance a call for purging the metastasis of this horrid word from our society and our cultures?

       In the year 2010, forty two years after my self defining speech and paper, what do I hear?  What do I read?  What do I see?

Black, black, black, black, black.

On the TV news, in the paper, in schools, on the radio, everywhere!  The world is uncontrollably divided into black and white, malignant and metastasized classifications. We cannot escape it.  We cannot escape our senses being bombarded constantly by:     

            black-white-black-white-black-white!

       When will it end, my brother?  Will we be subjected to this plague even unto our deaths.  Have we no choice other than to interbreed out the differences.  That would certainly solve the problem, leaving no differences to discriminate.

       What will it take?  Another charismatic, enigmatic leader like Dr. King?  Where will we find him?

Will he be black, . . . or white? 

       Is there no escape?  Who will come forth?  Who will climb this mountain and tell us what is on the other side?

One, the Number

ONE

       One may be the loneliest number, but it is also the most interesting number between zero and infinity.  The number “one” represents unity.  Zero means null or void. We are told in early math or algebra, that (1) we can multiply any number by 1, and the result will be that number.  Likewise, (2) if you multiply any number by zero, the result will be zero.

       These two statements seem so obvious that we do not perceive their having any significance or usefulness.  But, ahhh… we are mistaken.

       The science of calculus is based upon three numbers: zero, one and infinity.  Actually, only one of these is a number, the one in the middle.  But all three can be treated as numbers.  We are familiar with these terms, but may not know of their uniqueness. 

         If you divide a line in half, then divide one of the remaining halves in half, and continue this process over and over— although the length may become too small to measure, or even to conceive— it can never be equal to zero. This concrete idea becomes abstract when the length becomes un-measurable. It becomes more abstract when you think of the number of times the line can divided in half as infinite. (Keep in mind that we are dealing with concepts.)

        It is by treating these infinitely small and infinitely large quantities as numbers, that formulas can be defined which can solve problems not solvable using ordinary mathematics or geometry.  The formulas will include the phrases such as as x approaches zero, as x approaches 1, or “as x approaches infinity.”

       Before a mathematics student is exposed to the concepts of calculus, he will have learned that the geometric terms “point” and “moment”, do not have dimension. Points and moments are pure concepts, ideas, but do not have quantity or magnitude. A point divides a line into its length up to the point and the length of the line that follows the point. The point separates these two portions of line, but has no (zero) length, itself.  A point in space occupies zero volume. It is a point where three lines intersect in three dimensions (height, length and width).  A moment is a dividing line between the past and the future.  A moment is what we call “the present”, but it has no duration of time.          

       There is, of course, an ambiguous use of the word “moment “ in language, which describes a short, undefined period of time.  But for mathematics, science and some spiritual philosophies and religions, a moment, or “the present”, is a period of time equal to zero.

       These concepts, unity, null and infinity, while simple concepts on the surface, are the basis of mathematical systems which make today’s technology possible: x times one equals x; x times zero equals zero; zero divided by x equals infinity.