Monday, November 17, 2008
Amazing Three Months
The past three (two and a half) months have been some of the most productive months I have had with regards to my intellectual development. The myriad of resources gained and perspectives have really shaped my view of the world. My eyes have opened wider to see the world as it is more clearly. I believe it is important to exclude any romantic notions of the world when trying to analyze it. But needless to say that is impossible. Coming into the department I had a romantic view of the way things in the government were accomplished. I had an idea but no really concrete evidence of how things turned and how objectives were completed and even thought up. So through this internship I have been able to really understand how the government works at a much closer view. I am able to visualize more clearly the organization of the department but also of our military which then gives me an ability to gain further insight. The saying started by Dostoevsky could hold to be true here in that the second half of one's life is just a reiteration and caused by the habits formed from the first half. The presuppositional framework we establish in the first half of our lives help form our actions and thoughts in the second half; also, the more knowledge one takes in at the first half provides a greater and deeper framework for gaining knowledge in the second half becuase of your understanding of the world and the underpinnings. I am a firm believer that the world is too vast and too great to be able to understand in one lifetime and the people who claim that they can are liars and obviously they have built a wall around them that is perceived to be an entirety of knowledge. This seemingly infinite and yet finite expanse of knowledge is a very beautiful thing. I digress. At any rate this experience has shown me a great deal of the world; alot of good and yet more bad. The more knowledge and understanding I gain the more I realize the futility of this life without God. I am grateful to God in that He has given me a compassionate heart. He has given me the fortitude to be able to handle what I see. My knowledge or capacity to understand is by no means greater than most I only differ in that I can see that I can and wish to know. I fear sometimes people get complacent and lose any passion to want to learn more and thus they create a wall of comfort around them. This wall doesn't keep the bad out it just means you can't see the bad. Bad things happen all the time. Great injustices happen and we choose to not see them! There are so many things I wish to say here but I fear that I might go off on too many tangents and will lose any thread of coherence. I will in the coming posts describe my learning experience here in the department in two maybe three tiers. Firt, I'll explain my growth in knowledge of global affairs; this will be split up into three topics of theory, actual events and USG role. This will focus more on the theory of international relations. Then I'll go into actual events and how they fit into the framework of the theories. I will then describe the USG role in the third post. I will attempt to be objective but will not try to take my opinion out of the equation for that is impossible. I will explain which theories I ascribe to as the best to explain global affairs and then hopefully you will see the world through the lens that I see them and then you are able to objectify what I say into what is there. (Leave no doubt though that your worldview will be a major player in how you see anything.) This does not mean that there is no objective truth it just means that you are looking at the objective truth through your own lens which is most likely flawed....as is mine; if they weren't then we can veritably say we have no lens.
Monday, August 4, 2008
interesting interview
Young Russians Define and Discuss Freedom
Vremya Novostey
August 1, 2008 (?)
Kseniya Makarova, Mariya Darmanskaya interview with young people in Moscow: "Are People Free Here? -- Young Muscovites on Freedom in the Country and in Their Lives"
Is there any freedom in today's Russia? And if so, how significant is it, how is it changing, and what does it depend upon? Where and how can you find freedom for yourself? The young journalists, Kseniya Makarova and Mariya Darmanskaya, put these questions to their Muscovite contemporaries- students at journalism and management faculties, a member of an experimental pop group, and an actor at an independent theater.
(Kseniya Kokareva, 19 years old, student at the journalism faculty of the Russian State University for the Humanities) In our Russian society today there is no freedom as such. I mean, it can be debated as a concept - to all intents and purposes, but in fact there is none. People are always telling us everywhere what we can and cannot do. However, in everyday life this is perhaps not that perceptible, but if we are speaking or writing specifically about the subject it is possible to list all the manifestations of a lack of freedom one after another - both everyday and those such as, for example, the fact that it was clear who would be president in our country even without the election. This is so established in our society that it has turned into a conscious need, by which the state is held up. While we officially have a democracy.
(Interviewer) So might it be said that freedom from the outset assumes some restrictions and the very concept of freedom itself also takes them into consideration? For example, according to an article from the Ozhegov dictionary "freedom" is "the subject's ability to manifest his will, based on a consciousness of the laws of the development of nature and society". Where these "permitted restrictions" end, and the suppression of freedom starts, is another matter...
(Tamara Khodova, 19 years old, student at the management faculty of Moscow State University) On the other hand, at least we do have the inviolability of the person. In contrast to the Soviet Union.
(Kokareva) The suppression of freedom, however clearly it might be expressed and whoever it might depend upon- the individual himself or the state, smothers the aspiration for freedom. The individual then tries to replace it with something, which reminds him of freedom. He seeks and finds alcohol, sex, drugs.
(Interviewer) Perhaps he is trying to escape his everyday lack of freedom. The director Alan Parker said in response to journalists: "people just have to encounter difficulties of somekind in life and they immediately make for the cinema". Does this then become a flight from reality or an attempt (or aspiration) to dodge it and wait things out?
(Khodova) Freedom is within. We constantly (and perhaps not consciously) perceive ourselves as our own usurpers: our body is a cage, our reason is limited, our feelings are forbidden, our thoughts all the time track our actions. All of this is a consequence of a lack of confidence and a fear of not doing things as we should. As soon as we understand that fear is of our own creation and that objectively no barriers exist, we will see that the road to freedom is open.
(Interviewer) There is no absolute freedom and never has been. Moreover, there should not be absolute freedom in a normal society, it is its absence and the restrictions that regulate the life of society. If an individual goes against the generally accepted norms, denying or refuting them, he will be repudiated by society.
Political regimes are classified according to degree of freedom. But I will try to assume that in a modern society, where the individual defines his level of freedom, the political regime takes one of the last places. In general, when the suppression of the individual by society is discussed, the bitter experience of the USSR immediately comes to mind. Things are different today. Simply because not everything depends on the Communist Party, even if the authorities would perhaps like it to. A load of other "extra-political" means of acquiring freedom are emerging.
(Kokareva) It is important to separate freedom into internal and external freedom. In the first case, this concerns the framework, which the individual - under the influence of his education or social environment - establishes for himself. Plus your own independent way of thinking. In the second case, freedom can often be reduced to some of its external (I would say material) manifestations, such as: education, career, family - everything the individual wants, what he aspires to in life. Internal freedom is much more individual and for some people it is higher than everything. So often, in exercising such freedom, the individual crosses over into boorishness and snobbery and prevents other people from living their lives. After all, your freedom ends where other people's begins.The only question is how to define the "where". It could be said that sub- o rcounter-cultures emerge if this internal freedom is taken to extremes. However, it is often quite forced, many people make up their freedom for themselves and try to express it by their conduct and actions. But there is the duty of one person towards others, there are ethics and responsibility.
(Interviewer) It is thought that freedom is the presence of the possibility of choice, options for the outcome of events. But the individual always has freedom of choice or will. That is, the possibility of choice and freedom of choice are different things. Freedom means that it is always possible to choose one side or another and it is not so much a matter of advantage for yourself here as the opportunity to choose. The opportunities to abandon everything at the last moment. Restrictions are constantly being placed on freedom of choice - morals, humanism, etiquette. Freedom of choice also manifests itself in ignoring them. Only this is not so good as it may seem initially. The point is that the freedom of will initially given to the individual places a responsibility on him for everything that he might do subsequently when exercising it.
And the more freedom you have, the more responsibility. Or is that not the case? How closely is freedom connected to etiquette and morality and what does the individual's understanding of this depend upon?
(Maksim Maltsev, 24 years old, actor at the Justo theater) It is not difficult to be free in the creative field today. Whoever you might be, whatever you might do, you only need to approach it sincerely, find like-minded people, and present everything competently. A theater, say, where plays are put on, which will never get onto the big stage because of their eccentricity or professional level. But an audience will always be found. Moreover, such a freedom involves a claim. A claim to independence of self-expression, and so it is sometimes appreciated by the audience three times as much. And sometimes people come precisely for the freedom. Just as they watch "alternative" independent cinema and choose non-glossy magazines.
Apart from anything else, another answer is suggested as one option to all discussion of the individual's freedom of creation - the Internet.
(Anzhela Magdesyan, 19 years old, member of the pop group Hot as Hell, which exists on the social network MySpace.com) Freedom sometimes comes up against space. Space, which there is very often not enough of in a big city and which is sought for this reason on the Internet. On the Internet you can, after all, feel you are anyone you like. And a free person in the first instance.
(Interviewer) In an interview to the Esquire magazine, the remarkable actor Leonid Bronevoy said: "An artist does not need freedom. A work of art is born when there is resistance, when something needs to be squeezed and squeezed. If there is freedom - there is no material. Air cannot be squeezed." Does this mean a lack of freedom is a spur, a challenge? And not only to create a "work of art" but also to other more active undertakings, up to revolution, in theory. Does freedom of will manifest itself in this - how to behave and what to do next after you have already encountered a lack of freedom? And the main question: does a lack of freedom - in the most varied of its manifestations - not become a literal condition of life, existence, development and the aspiration towards something? This implies that to feel free, a person needs to overcome something, cope with something, distinguish himself, fight. To put it more simply, freedom can be equated to achievement.
By the way, in the same interview Bronevoy says: "Nothing - neither the joy of the writer, nor the art of artists - can be compared in terms of its strength with the sense of power." So does freedom mean power? And power freedom? And can freedom be bought?
(Kokareva) Freedom comes up against money. Otherwise it is difficult for you to feel free; money has always remained the determining factor of the level of an individual's freedom in society. It is possible, of course, to object that everything depends on the specific idea of freedom held by an individual. But the point is that society today exists in such a way that everything can be reduced to money and this is perceived as natural.
(Interviewer) Freedom is not so much the unrestricted possibility of the individual manifesting his will so much as the essence of the manifestation of will by the individual. This definition, among others, can be found by putting the word "freedom" into Google. And in this case, freedom touches on individuality and self expression. But if a person does not have any individuality does this mean that he is not free? Individuality, your own style, are equated to independence today. But at the same time, it is possible to assert that the formation and development of the person depend on freedom. So there is a point in asking: is it possible to consider the manifestation of freedom by a person - in conduct, clothing, choice of music or cinema etc - as a necessary attribute, indicator of personality? It seems so. People value character in their friends today, and character in the final analysis always means demonstrating freedom, a free way of thinking and acting.
(Maltsev) People are striving to remain free, first and foremost from one another, and at the same time they are very strongly connected to one another. Popularity plays a huge role in a consumer society and the result is that you are not free from fashion, magazines, and parties, for example, that everyone goes to.
(Kokareva) When you are nineteen, you are free in relative terms: only in your own plans, dreams, and ambitions. Although this in itself is worth a lot, you still know at the same time that you will probably not achieve many things.
(Interviewer) Freedom as "an absence of barriers" does not exist. In this sense, our entire lives are completely lacking in freedom. Freedom is most probably a harmony between the individual's interior world and the one that surrounds him. That is why freedom of choice is the main freedom. If an individual can choose his religion, his lifestyle, profession and fulfil himself - that is the maximum of freedom possible in the life of the individual.
Vremya Novostey
August 1, 2008 (?)
Kseniya Makarova, Mariya Darmanskaya interview with young people in Moscow: "Are People Free Here? -- Young Muscovites on Freedom in the Country and in Their Lives"
Is there any freedom in today's Russia? And if so, how significant is it, how is it changing, and what does it depend upon? Where and how can you find freedom for yourself? The young journalists, Kseniya Makarova and Mariya Darmanskaya, put these questions to their Muscovite contemporaries- students at journalism and management faculties, a member of an experimental pop group, and an actor at an independent theater.
(Kseniya Kokareva, 19 years old, student at the journalism faculty of the Russian State University for the Humanities) In our Russian society today there is no freedom as such. I mean, it can be debated as a concept - to all intents and purposes, but in fact there is none. People are always telling us everywhere what we can and cannot do. However, in everyday life this is perhaps not that perceptible, but if we are speaking or writing specifically about the subject it is possible to list all the manifestations of a lack of freedom one after another - both everyday and those such as, for example, the fact that it was clear who would be president in our country even without the election. This is so established in our society that it has turned into a conscious need, by which the state is held up. While we officially have a democracy.
(Interviewer) So might it be said that freedom from the outset assumes some restrictions and the very concept of freedom itself also takes them into consideration? For example, according to an article from the Ozhegov dictionary "freedom" is "the subject's ability to manifest his will, based on a consciousness of the laws of the development of nature and society". Where these "permitted restrictions" end, and the suppression of freedom starts, is another matter...
(Tamara Khodova, 19 years old, student at the management faculty of Moscow State University) On the other hand, at least we do have the inviolability of the person. In contrast to the Soviet Union.
(Kokareva) The suppression of freedom, however clearly it might be expressed and whoever it might depend upon- the individual himself or the state, smothers the aspiration for freedom. The individual then tries to replace it with something, which reminds him of freedom. He seeks and finds alcohol, sex, drugs.
(Interviewer) Perhaps he is trying to escape his everyday lack of freedom. The director Alan Parker said in response to journalists: "people just have to encounter difficulties of somekind in life and they immediately make for the cinema". Does this then become a flight from reality or an attempt (or aspiration) to dodge it and wait things out?
(Khodova) Freedom is within. We constantly (and perhaps not consciously) perceive ourselves as our own usurpers: our body is a cage, our reason is limited, our feelings are forbidden, our thoughts all the time track our actions. All of this is a consequence of a lack of confidence and a fear of not doing things as we should. As soon as we understand that fear is of our own creation and that objectively no barriers exist, we will see that the road to freedom is open.
(Interviewer) There is no absolute freedom and never has been. Moreover, there should not be absolute freedom in a normal society, it is its absence and the restrictions that regulate the life of society. If an individual goes against the generally accepted norms, denying or refuting them, he will be repudiated by society.
Political regimes are classified according to degree of freedom. But I will try to assume that in a modern society, where the individual defines his level of freedom, the political regime takes one of the last places. In general, when the suppression of the individual by society is discussed, the bitter experience of the USSR immediately comes to mind. Things are different today. Simply because not everything depends on the Communist Party, even if the authorities would perhaps like it to. A load of other "extra-political" means of acquiring freedom are emerging.
(Kokareva) It is important to separate freedom into internal and external freedom. In the first case, this concerns the framework, which the individual - under the influence of his education or social environment - establishes for himself. Plus your own independent way of thinking. In the second case, freedom can often be reduced to some of its external (I would say material) manifestations, such as: education, career, family - everything the individual wants, what he aspires to in life. Internal freedom is much more individual and for some people it is higher than everything. So often, in exercising such freedom, the individual crosses over into boorishness and snobbery and prevents other people from living their lives. After all, your freedom ends where other people's begins.The only question is how to define the "where". It could be said that sub- o rcounter-cultures emerge if this internal freedom is taken to extremes. However, it is often quite forced, many people make up their freedom for themselves and try to express it by their conduct and actions. But there is the duty of one person towards others, there are ethics and responsibility.
(Interviewer) It is thought that freedom is the presence of the possibility of choice, options for the outcome of events. But the individual always has freedom of choice or will. That is, the possibility of choice and freedom of choice are different things. Freedom means that it is always possible to choose one side or another and it is not so much a matter of advantage for yourself here as the opportunity to choose. The opportunities to abandon everything at the last moment. Restrictions are constantly being placed on freedom of choice - morals, humanism, etiquette. Freedom of choice also manifests itself in ignoring them. Only this is not so good as it may seem initially. The point is that the freedom of will initially given to the individual places a responsibility on him for everything that he might do subsequently when exercising it.
And the more freedom you have, the more responsibility. Or is that not the case? How closely is freedom connected to etiquette and morality and what does the individual's understanding of this depend upon?
(Maksim Maltsev, 24 years old, actor at the Justo theater) It is not difficult to be free in the creative field today. Whoever you might be, whatever you might do, you only need to approach it sincerely, find like-minded people, and present everything competently. A theater, say, where plays are put on, which will never get onto the big stage because of their eccentricity or professional level. But an audience will always be found. Moreover, such a freedom involves a claim. A claim to independence of self-expression, and so it is sometimes appreciated by the audience three times as much. And sometimes people come precisely for the freedom. Just as they watch "alternative" independent cinema and choose non-glossy magazines.
Apart from anything else, another answer is suggested as one option to all discussion of the individual's freedom of creation - the Internet.
(Anzhela Magdesyan, 19 years old, member of the pop group Hot as Hell, which exists on the social network MySpace.com) Freedom sometimes comes up against space. Space, which there is very often not enough of in a big city and which is sought for this reason on the Internet. On the Internet you can, after all, feel you are anyone you like. And a free person in the first instance.
(Interviewer) In an interview to the Esquire magazine, the remarkable actor Leonid Bronevoy said: "An artist does not need freedom. A work of art is born when there is resistance, when something needs to be squeezed and squeezed. If there is freedom - there is no material. Air cannot be squeezed." Does this mean a lack of freedom is a spur, a challenge? And not only to create a "work of art" but also to other more active undertakings, up to revolution, in theory. Does freedom of will manifest itself in this - how to behave and what to do next after you have already encountered a lack of freedom? And the main question: does a lack of freedom - in the most varied of its manifestations - not become a literal condition of life, existence, development and the aspiration towards something? This implies that to feel free, a person needs to overcome something, cope with something, distinguish himself, fight. To put it more simply, freedom can be equated to achievement.
By the way, in the same interview Bronevoy says: "Nothing - neither the joy of the writer, nor the art of artists - can be compared in terms of its strength with the sense of power." So does freedom mean power? And power freedom? And can freedom be bought?
(Kokareva) Freedom comes up against money. Otherwise it is difficult for you to feel free; money has always remained the determining factor of the level of an individual's freedom in society. It is possible, of course, to object that everything depends on the specific idea of freedom held by an individual. But the point is that society today exists in such a way that everything can be reduced to money and this is perceived as natural.
(Interviewer) Freedom is not so much the unrestricted possibility of the individual manifesting his will so much as the essence of the manifestation of will by the individual. This definition, among others, can be found by putting the word "freedom" into Google. And in this case, freedom touches on individuality and self expression. But if a person does not have any individuality does this mean that he is not free? Individuality, your own style, are equated to independence today. But at the same time, it is possible to assert that the formation and development of the person depend on freedom. So there is a point in asking: is it possible to consider the manifestation of freedom by a person - in conduct, clothing, choice of music or cinema etc - as a necessary attribute, indicator of personality? It seems so. People value character in their friends today, and character in the final analysis always means demonstrating freedom, a free way of thinking and acting.
(Maltsev) People are striving to remain free, first and foremost from one another, and at the same time they are very strongly connected to one another. Popularity plays a huge role in a consumer society and the result is that you are not free from fashion, magazines, and parties, for example, that everyone goes to.
(Kokareva) When you are nineteen, you are free in relative terms: only in your own plans, dreams, and ambitions. Although this in itself is worth a lot, you still know at the same time that you will probably not achieve many things.
(Interviewer) Freedom as "an absence of barriers" does not exist. In this sense, our entire lives are completely lacking in freedom. Freedom is most probably a harmony between the individual's interior world and the one that surrounds him. That is why freedom of choice is the main freedom. If an individual can choose his religion, his lifestyle, profession and fulfil himself - that is the maximum of freedom possible in the life of the individual.
Friday, February 22, 2008
some random thoughts on Barack Obama
"Barack Obama writes in Foreign Affairs that the United States needs to move beyond Iraq and 'refocus our attention on the broader Middle East.'" - From CFR website on Mr. Obama's stance on the war in Iraq.
Some would have accused me of faltering from a traditional Republican stance on things especially by somewhat of a support for the senator from Illinois. I disagree wholeheartedly.
I am more concerned about focusing on the end but always reevaluating how to get there so the most efficient measure would be discerned and the end reached possibly more efficiently. The same could go for Iraq, I would like to see in Iraq a free and prosperous people that is free to follow their religion of choice and run their government the way they wish it to be run. This of course must not happen at the expense of human freedom and protection (meaning running government the way they wish)!
Saying that, I now want to look at the war in Iraq and by no means draw any substantial conclusion about the war and how its run but at least to talk about some things that need to be discussed further about Obama's views of the war and in particular to the statement above.
For one, I believe the war did not fall under the jus ad bellum criteria. The past cannot be rewritten and therefore we are stuck in the mistakes of the past and they are now reality. To escape from the war now is unjust. We have inherited a conflict that was not in the original plans, for the war against the Hussein regime ended with a swift swoop. What we face now is some form of sectarian violence between the Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a. As an outside actor in the country we must do our best not to forgo any of the rights of the three groups. The policies to follow must come from a viewpoint to get out of war the most efficient way and therefore the decision must not be made hastily. An easy-out may not be the most efficient, because chances are a breeding ground for conflict will be left behind and no type of prevention will be there to slow things down and allow time for an efficient resolution.
Mr. Obama has stated that he will pull out of Iraq when he becomes President and I hope that is just campaign rhetoric and that when circumstances are viewed a little closer his mind will change about pulling out. Change (this campaign's word) is decidedly needed. General Petraus has certainly brought that to the war and has improved things greatly.
Possibly a change in strategy all together is needed in order to win and to make sure changes are permanent. I believe it's necessary to concede mistakes but we also must arise to them and correct them; doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat.
The main reason I mentioned the above quote is because I honestly believe by pulling out hastily we are not only endangering the Iraqi state but also the whole region. It is already starting to bubble over with the recent Turkish invasion of northern Iraq. Let us not be the catalyst of Iraqi demise but let us finish what we have mistakingly started.
By this, I am not saying we should stay in because of our pride but for fears of future conflicts that can be avoided.
Some would have accused me of faltering from a traditional Republican stance on things especially by somewhat of a support for the senator from Illinois. I disagree wholeheartedly.
I am more concerned about focusing on the end but always reevaluating how to get there so the most efficient measure would be discerned and the end reached possibly more efficiently. The same could go for Iraq, I would like to see in Iraq a free and prosperous people that is free to follow their religion of choice and run their government the way they wish it to be run. This of course must not happen at the expense of human freedom and protection (meaning running government the way they wish)!
Saying that, I now want to look at the war in Iraq and by no means draw any substantial conclusion about the war and how its run but at least to talk about some things that need to be discussed further about Obama's views of the war and in particular to the statement above.
For one, I believe the war did not fall under the jus ad bellum criteria. The past cannot be rewritten and therefore we are stuck in the mistakes of the past and they are now reality. To escape from the war now is unjust. We have inherited a conflict that was not in the original plans, for the war against the Hussein regime ended with a swift swoop. What we face now is some form of sectarian violence between the Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a. As an outside actor in the country we must do our best not to forgo any of the rights of the three groups. The policies to follow must come from a viewpoint to get out of war the most efficient way and therefore the decision must not be made hastily. An easy-out may not be the most efficient, because chances are a breeding ground for conflict will be left behind and no type of prevention will be there to slow things down and allow time for an efficient resolution.
Mr. Obama has stated that he will pull out of Iraq when he becomes President and I hope that is just campaign rhetoric and that when circumstances are viewed a little closer his mind will change about pulling out. Change (this campaign's word) is decidedly needed. General Petraus has certainly brought that to the war and has improved things greatly.
Possibly a change in strategy all together is needed in order to win and to make sure changes are permanent. I believe it's necessary to concede mistakes but we also must arise to them and correct them; doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat.
The main reason I mentioned the above quote is because I honestly believe by pulling out hastily we are not only endangering the Iraqi state but also the whole region. It is already starting to bubble over with the recent Turkish invasion of northern Iraq. Let us not be the catalyst of Iraqi demise but let us finish what we have mistakingly started.
By this, I am not saying we should stay in because of our pride but for fears of future conflicts that can be avoided.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Honor
So, my name is John. This is my first post. The idea behind this blog is, like any other blog, to get my idea's out there and hopefully read. I have this strange compulsion sometimes, when suddenly inspired or a good idea comes to mind, to go and tell it. Hopefully this can be an outlet to some degree. Although, I would imagine that those compulsory shouting of ideas may be a little quirky. So while containing those tidbits, of mostly useless stuff, I will also try to provide my own thoughts on certain trends in the politics of our time and even books that I am reading, all an attempt to get writing practice and also to try and arrange the bullets flying around in my mind aimlessly to a more strict barrel so that I may get on target with what I am trying to communicate. I understand that getting the metaphysical idea into a conduit of communication can be difficult. Many people try this but fail, that or their ideas are no good. So, this is why I am trying to sharpen the way I communicate so that without a doubt I may know that my ideas are good or bad and that the way I communicated did not affect that. Also, so I may be able to judge which of my ideas are worth pursuing and developing more or to just drop it. I feel that if I am able to communicate well and to siphon my thoughts into clearly communicable channels then I can start on a road to change - my life or what is around me.
Whenever we write we are basing our ideas and even sometimes observations from our presuppositions. So I believe that laying them down here, people reading may get a small view into the foundation in which I base every thought and every action. I am foremost a Christian, meaning I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, His teachings guide me. I feel that is all I need to say but I know that there also may be a need to describe what being a disciple of Christ actually means. There are volumes out there on what that means, and I could write many more on what it means. So here is the foundation in which I live my life: the bible is without a doubt God's Word, and therefore ultimate truth is found in it. That truth is something that demands everything of us. There is no middle ground. God's word is final, every truth can find its root in some form in it. Knowing that how I see people and the world around me obviously has to come through the lens of God's Word for that is the only one that really shows what is actually there. Often times, we put our own colored lens on our eyes and sometimes we even cover them up so much that we are blinded to the truth. So, if I am to look at God's Word as infallible and the straight line that is absolute truth then that should affect the way I think and act! Hopefully this has allowed you a peek into what I base everything on. Now, I warn you that every thought and therefore action, for it is from the thought that action is born, is not infallible and is subject to being swayed by other philosophies that have a touch of truth but is not the whole deal. So what I say may be false and therefore you, as the reader, need to let me know and we can discuss that.
SLOSHED NEPALI AMISH - What does that mean? Well it may be a long story. I was riding with a friend, code name Travis, to a summer camp type thing, which was amazing. Code Name Travis is by far one of the coolest people I know! He is an extremely enjoyable person to talk to and discuss not only random things about life, and sometimes not about life?, and then some serious discussion which is guaranteed to have some deep truth in it. But at this particular time riding in the car with Code Name Travis, and I forget what we were talking about, it may have been about something related to Amish people. At any rate, it was all of a sudden said that "Amish sounds like it should be a condiment. Like 'mmm, this is good but it sure could use some amish.' or 'this steak is a bit dry please pass the amish.'" So, when naming this blog, this phrase that was mentioned by code name Travis kind of stuck out, for one it just kind of bounces off the tongue. This is the one and only reason for choosing this. It sounds ridiculous. And there is nothing to be deduced by that title it is just a silly title. So like somethings you will find in this blog will be ridiculous and silly but hopefully you will get something out of it. But of course this may be just a selfish adventure to try and make my communicating skills a little better. Either way we will learn.
Whenever we write we are basing our ideas and even sometimes observations from our presuppositions. So I believe that laying them down here, people reading may get a small view into the foundation in which I base every thought and every action. I am foremost a Christian, meaning I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, His teachings guide me. I feel that is all I need to say but I know that there also may be a need to describe what being a disciple of Christ actually means. There are volumes out there on what that means, and I could write many more on what it means. So here is the foundation in which I live my life: the bible is without a doubt God's Word, and therefore ultimate truth is found in it. That truth is something that demands everything of us. There is no middle ground. God's word is final, every truth can find its root in some form in it. Knowing that how I see people and the world around me obviously has to come through the lens of God's Word for that is the only one that really shows what is actually there. Often times, we put our own colored lens on our eyes and sometimes we even cover them up so much that we are blinded to the truth. So, if I am to look at God's Word as infallible and the straight line that is absolute truth then that should affect the way I think and act! Hopefully this has allowed you a peek into what I base everything on. Now, I warn you that every thought and therefore action, for it is from the thought that action is born, is not infallible and is subject to being swayed by other philosophies that have a touch of truth but is not the whole deal. So what I say may be false and therefore you, as the reader, need to let me know and we can discuss that.
SLOSHED NEPALI AMISH - What does that mean? Well it may be a long story. I was riding with a friend, code name Travis, to a summer camp type thing, which was amazing. Code Name Travis is by far one of the coolest people I know! He is an extremely enjoyable person to talk to and discuss not only random things about life, and sometimes not about life?, and then some serious discussion which is guaranteed to have some deep truth in it. But at this particular time riding in the car with Code Name Travis, and I forget what we were talking about, it may have been about something related to Amish people. At any rate, it was all of a sudden said that "Amish sounds like it should be a condiment. Like 'mmm, this is good but it sure could use some amish.' or 'this steak is a bit dry please pass the amish.'" So, when naming this blog, this phrase that was mentioned by code name Travis kind of stuck out, for one it just kind of bounces off the tongue. This is the one and only reason for choosing this. It sounds ridiculous. And there is nothing to be deduced by that title it is just a silly title. So like somethings you will find in this blog will be ridiculous and silly but hopefully you will get something out of it. But of course this may be just a selfish adventure to try and make my communicating skills a little better. Either way we will learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)