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.