Science fiction

I've been reading Orson Scott Card's "Ender" series these days and it occurred to me how powerful science fiction and fantasy can be as a medium to pass on philosophical and intellectual ideas to those not used to reading standard cut and dry academic style textbooks.

In the creation of science fiction, one essentially has to create another world - but in doing so one generally embeds your assumptions about how you think the world operates as well as how you think the world should operate as you create idealists that you agree with and disagree with as well as weaving together relationships in the way that you interpret them to exist and think that they formulate themselves within standard human (and in the case of with aliens) and non-human interaction.

In the case of Orson Scott Card, he seems particularly interested in the philosophical question of how humans act when faced with something so strange and otherly that it is beyond immediate comprehension. Are humans compassionate enough that they would be willing to take the time to understand what is going on or would they be so repulsed by this strange behaviour that they think that either the behaviour must be eradicated... or the actors that carry out these "despicable" customs? Card has his own conclusions, and I'll let you figure them out by reading the book yourself. I don't really feel like outlining and critically analyzing his point of view... maybe I'll do that some other time. Right now I'd much rather speculate on what I think about this subject.

In my experience, people do not react very well to things that they see as strange or out of the ordinary. Anyone that has feelings, thoughts, emotions, or ideals that does not conform to your standard of "normal" leads one to believe that they are "abnormal." Maybe this is true. Maybe it isn't. It really does depend on whether the definition of "normal" depends on a majority opinion or whether there is a more objective standard... or whether there is a standard at all.

Of course to hold that there is no such thing as normal defies the human desire to order things into categories so that they can make sense of what goes on in their worlds. If it is natural for a person to judge then categorize another person based on how they act, what they look like, how they interact with them, does it make sense to conclude that there must therefore be an objective normal? Not necessarily. But this is aside from the original thought flow.

So what do you do then when you encounter something that you define as "abnormal"? (all arguments of whether there is an objective standard of normality or not. For all intents and purposes, abnormality exists because people perceive it to exist. Arguing THAT point is the subject of another essay entirely.) Some people are more compassionate and are willing to try and understand what is going on. But what if the act or observed is so hideous and repulsive that by all human moral comprehension, it is an act that does not make any sense whatsoever?

To be honest, it is a question that I don't think I'd be able to face with much positive outcome in reality. If I were to see it, based on my past reaction to such things, I'd be repulsed and it would take me forever to accept the doers of the act... and I would most likely never really accept the act as anything that I could accept.

Interestingly enough, thinking about this idea of how people would react to "otherness" in the context of a science fiction linked with the topic of much discussion this past weekend. I was at the Korean Christian Fellowship (KCF) May Conference and a lot of the talk there was about whether we act like Pharisees that are so obsessed with outward appearance of righteousness that we never stop to love those that do not conform to that image. As a part of that, the speaker asked us whether we created communities where people would feel safe sharing their deep hurts and thoughts.

I got to thinking about that. Do we do this in our christian fellowships? Do we do this in our churches? Do we do this in our small groups even? I'm sure that many people have experienced groups where they really could share the deepest darkest most vile thoughts that they had in order to receive prayers of healing and emotional support as they struggled through these things. But overall? Due to our lack of ability to identify with and our natural desire to vilify particular acts, would we really allow people to feel safe sharing these things in our groups? What if one of our Christian brothers found himself struggling with homosexual temptations and lusts? Would they feel safe sharing this within our small groups that we've created at KCF or at church or in our discpleship groups at Campus for Christ? What if someone found themselves struggling with the temptation to engage in masochistic acts? Would we still see this person the same way or would we be so repulsed by what seems like such a weird and abnormal act that we wouldn't actually help this person? What if someone shared that they felt themselves sexually attracted to children and that they really wanted your help? Would we give it to that person, or would we see to it that they were locked up, vilified, and isolated so that they likely hood of them acting out on their temptations actually increases?

I have no real answers to these questions. But it did occur to me that despite the fact that these people are perhaps struggling with temptations that YOU yourself are not struggling with does not mean they are suddenly monsters, that they for some reason are not human because they have these feelings. Do we even stop to try and think of what we would do should this situation arise and how we as individuals, as a Christian fellowship, as a church would respond to this? Are we willing to act like Christ and still hang out with these people with the mindset that they need Jesus just as much as anyone else and that they need the emotional support and love of people around them to show them Christ's love?

Interesting that a science fiction written by someone that holds religious beliefs that I find questionable contemplating ideas in ways that I completely disagree with should lead me to ask some difficult questions to myself about whether I would truly love those that I find completely different from me. The things that one learns when you keep an open mind.

Feeling alive

My body has this dull aching pain all over from muscle fatigue and improper sleep (I really shouldn't have gone to bed so late last night.) But I realized that I don't find this particular feeling uncomfortable... in fact it makes me feel more alive than ever. I associate this feeling with the idea that I have been working long and hard, I associate this pain with something that make me feel productive... therefore it makes me feel good to say that I have a dull ache all over my body.

At the same time, it's funny because it is probably the last summer that I'll be feeling this kind of dull ache consistently throughout - as I'll likely be behind a desk for the next few years of my life including in the summer time... or hunched over a computer. And then it will be necessary to induce this kind of feeling by jogging/going to the gym/ etc.

For some reason, I find this incredibly interesting. Usually people will shy away from most forms of physical pain - those that don't are generally labelled masochists and shunned as weirdos and outcasts. And usually people are right - pain is often a message that your nerves are sending to your brain that something bad is happening or something worse is about to happen that could cause severe bodily harm. And maybe the dull ache in a person's body after heavy exertion is a similar sort of warning message. But there's something about the associated feeling of having done something productive that just makes one feel good about oneself.

I juxtapose this particular ache and the associated thought processes with this past Monday when I was not able to go to work because there was no work... so I stayed home all day and played Starcraft and slept. My body felt more tired even though I didn't do anything... or perhaps precisely because I didn't do anything useful or active that day.

A strange contradiction... when you don't do anything, your mind goes sluggish - but when you put in a good days work and your body feels tired, you're mind feels much more alert than when you were lazy all day. Is this the body's way of telling me that I wasn't meant to sit around and be a couch potato all day? I suppose it's another reason to get out of bed and keep active other than the fact that lying in bed and playing computer games all day is just a seminal waste of my life.

Fo da first time

I am blogging on my macbook.

This is a nifty little machine.  A little frustrating at times because there are some fundamental functionality differences between a PC and a Mac, but I really like the interface and the layout.  It's quite intuitive... despite me not knowing how to do some of the more complicated things... and if I can't find anything... well that's what Spotlight is for.

Does your PC have Spotlight?  No I didn't think so... you have to download your precious Google search toolbar :P

Sorry... just reacting to negative reactions to the news that I have acquired a Macbook :P

But this blog is not about Macbooks.  Well... yes you can argue that since I have spoken about my macbook within the beginning of this post it is sort of about Macbooks.  THAT is not the point.  The point is.... that business never changes!

Sorry... Michael Scott moment there.  I love that man.  No matter how ignorant and therefore insensitive that makes him to issues that should not be approached with 10-feet poles.  In the end, there's always something to like about him :P

As you can see, I really don't have anything significant to say here.. I'm just sort of.... well spouting things :P

So I'm going to stop now.

My arm has started peeling.  Apparently I should have reapplied my SPF 60 sunblock.

*shrug*

Mush

No reason for the title.  Just like the word mush.  It means so many things.  A term usually used to describe unappealing useless slop.  It also means go.

It occurred to me today that the claim that science has explained much of what was previously attributed to God and religion is a load of crap.  I remember reading it somewhere on Facebook... it was in a thread that someone started on that "Bill Gates sharing his fortune" group that so many people I know joined.

It's a funny group and a weird way to evangelize.

I don't know if I think it's the most effective, but it's funny.

Sure, we know why it rains now and where it comes from and the whole water cycle and all that stuff.  Sure we know why earthquakes happen, and what causes the wind to blow, and why a bird has a gizzard, and that lightning is not some thing thrown from the sky by a tempermental, promiscuous, and bored deity.

But do we REALLY know WHY?  We know how it happens.  We can observe the natural processes by which it occurs.  But how much about those processes do we really actually know?  As far as I know, the further out the astronomers look, the harder it gets to find scientific explanations for all the weird crap they can see.  It is also my understanding that the smaller physicists look, the same thing occurs.  (Makes me think of that Simpsons opening where the camera zooms out so far it loops back around out of Homer's head.  Didn't make sense?  I don't feel like explaining :P)

So how can anyone claim that our understanding of natural processes has "explained" God out of the picture?  What has science really "explained" to us other than the fact that the world is even more complicated than we first realized?  How does this then logically lead us to the conclusion that therefore God does not exist?  It puzzles me... as I'm sure my belief in God puzzles the athiest.

Alas a conundrum and problem that will run in circles for the years and ages to come (while time still exists and the Earth is still in turmoil anyway.)

Some time has also been spent contemplating on what it means to feel wronged by someone.  In feeling wronged, when you lash out, you also do wrong and so it is then not really unfair that you apologize and the other party does not.  After all, the decision to form and speak an apology is one's own responsibility... you can only force a child to speak an apology, and then not even can you make them mean it.

And yet, when you feel wronged and that party apparently thinks they've done nothing wrong, how does one go about letting the other party know that you feel wronged?  What if after the confrontation, they still refuse to acknowledge that they committed a wrong and you are thus forced to break off the conversation with the metaphorical bad taste in your mouth?

Obviously this situation is not hypothetical.  I'm not going to insult your intelligence by making any such insinuations.  However, breaking off the relationship is not an option.  Not in this case.

When you learn to handle situations such as this, is that what it means to become older and wiser?

I wonder.

It's funny how these things go

Last week was embarrasing. One of those weeks (or at least one of those days out of that week) that you wish had never happened and you could go back, burn it, and pretend that it never happened.

This week has been great.... got my graduation/birthday present (mid range Macbook! So much fun to play around with.....) and found out that I passed all my courses and so will actually graduate come this June. I also got a free 990.10 from York and they cleared out my account. Now to go and pay my library fines >_<

And my mood shot around accordingly.

Geez I need to figure out a way to regulate myself.

And I need to start thinking before I speak. I say things I don't need to and say things in ways that are not so edifying to those around me.

I also worked for two hours today and got paid for four. But I still need more money.