a

Unintended Consequences of Disruptive Forces

2007-02-26T00:03:00.000-08:00

"Disruptive forces are forces that change the status quo- they somehow throw off the equilibrium and sink social groups, businesses, and even societies into chaos," (Dr. Pic). Well said. I should think that such forces are more common than first imagined or recognized, and fittingly this could in fact be what often gives them such insidiousness, their quietly subversive nature. An overt peril threatening a society, business, etc could and certainly has, led to the downfall of such organizations. But yet, more dangerous still is the patient force willing to wait, willing to be unnoticed and ineffectual...For a time... Slowly, painlessly, even with acceptance it works out its course, graduating with the poison of a kind of chemical tolerance, yes even dependency, and no one desires opposition.

First, let me stray, from this quiet subversiveness and turn to the anthropological, missiological world. Consider the Yir Yoront, tribal people group of Australia. In their society, the stone ax was much more than a tool or weapon, it held great symbolic meaning as an object representing authority and household leadership status. Though possessing imperative social and societal relevance, the stone ax is not however the most efficient tool. Technology has progressed far beyond such 'limited' resources, yielding significantly greater efficacy. In seeing what seemed to be an apparently easy way to improve standard of living (I am admittedly paraphrasing), certain missionary women gave a steel ax to any woman who wanted one. What began with such positive intent produced what has been aptly termed by missiolgical jargon, 'unintended consequences.' Now with countless symbols of authority and leadership, certain men were no longer needed, certain rituals such as journeying to a distant point to collect the stone for the ax were no longer relevant. In all, the society as a whole was eventually led into ruin and consequent dissipation, indeed quite the extensive consequence of such an unassuming action. Truly, it was not simply the introduction of the steel ax which caused such drastic repercussions but rather a series of consequences and further stimuli which led to the result. One could certainly debate the isolation of such a dramatic scenario, but nevertheless, as ambassadors of Christ, whether in a foreign culture or in our own domestic, we must be able to foresee such unintended consequences of disruptive forces.

...The winds of change...Do technics designed and created for the "soul intention" of doing something immoral inherently immoral themselves? Let me proceed with a scatter plot of questions and a few scattered answers. First, does form ever follow function, i.e. does the technic ever become immoral because of its intention? It seems that yes, we have agreed that a technic, say we continue with the radar detector, becomes immoral when used for its intended purpose to allow a person to speed (and also say we assume for the purpose of this argument that speeding is wrong...a debate on speeding would drive us down the wrong road...). If we are to question whether the usage of the radar in an immoral way makes it immoral, we have again changed lanes, and now must ask can inanimate objects possess morality at all? If we said it could not, then this discussion would be completely irrelevant because intention, inherency, etc could not change the fact that the technic, being inanimate, could never be labeled moral or immoral. Once again, it seems however that this is not our discussion, and so we proceed.

So we agree that sometimes form does follow function. But if the form does not always follow function, then when does it not follow function? Possibly, when it is not in use, i.e. sitting in a box in a store? But when the intended purpose is only a purchase away, can the idle state really separate the radar from its immoral state? Suppose a man walking down the street, Tom, is confronted by another man, Joe. They used to be good friends, in fact best of friends, often embarking on adventures, saving the day, and the like, quite the heroic tag team. They had grown up playing sports together, contriving new plays and leaving the crowds in awe. Attending the same university, they each were highly involved with campus activities and performed well in school. Each meeting their respective wives, their lives took a divergence as jobs and family led them to different cities. But always would they remember their days of youth and great adventures, passing on their heroic tales to their sons. All of these details however, are irrelevant. Back to Tom and Joe meeting each other on the street.

If Joe walks with a knife pointed toward Tom, coming nearer and nearer, could a police officer only stop Joe once Tom was cut and hurt, or clearly seeing the intention could the officer apprehend Joe though he had not actually committed a crime? Can intention truly be separated from form?

...tuning to a different station... on a final more light-hearted note, I venture away from constant theoretical ramblings and counter-ramblings, and land on the technology of iTunes. First, a mechanistic view of iTunes technology would begin to label and define the different parts of the software on a user's computer. Information input from cd's is read in binary and compiled into logical sequences which are downloaded into a virtual storage facility known as the "library." In addition from importing songs from a cd, one can acquire songs, videos, podcasts, etc from the iTunes music store, incorporation an entirely new form of technology, even beyond the one I have just egregiously oversimplified. Through a certain address on one's personal computer, an ip address, "packages" are sent through cyber pathways to locate and communicate (through more packages) with another address at the music store located somewhere in intricacy of the world wide web. "Downloading" a song sends more packages to the user's computer, resulting in the acquirement of new files, types of data, on the user computer. But beyond the incredible physical technology, there is a human technology which is astounding. First, the ability to create such a thing as "computer" and "internet" and then integrating the two. Past these, the technology (if it may be called such) of the brain to recognize vibrations traveling through the air as music, distinct from voices in the background or street noise. Finally, the technology of preference in which some vibrations recognized as music are considered pleasant and especially preferred over others which fall in an intricate system of enjoyment. With the "simple" harnessing of the physical technology and fusing it with an immense database of music to appeal to the user's technological preference, a result was yielded in a fusion phenomenon known as iTunes.

from 'Intercessor'

2007-02-04T20:00:00.000-08:00

2 Kings 19:14...

Intercessor

2007-02-04T19:24:00.000-08:00

" 'O LORD, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Give ear, O LORD, and hear; open your eyes, O LORD, and see; listen to the words Sennacherib has sent to insult the living God...Now, O LORD our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that you alone, O LORD, are God.' ...

'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:

'I have heard your prayer

concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria.'

This is the word that the LORD has spoken against him:

...Who is it you have insulted and blasphemed?
Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride?
Against the Holy One of Israel!' "

God continues to say that He will defeat Sennacherib. Sennacherib's attack was not merely against Israel, God stood in between and said 'You have attacked me.'

Please, don't make this political, go deeper. When the Enemy attacks us, in the moment of discouragement, doubt, temptation, fear, we he comes unexpected and with force, don't we know that our God is saying 'You have attacked me.' If only I will have, we will have, the faith to believe this.

I can see this picture of a father stepping in front of his son with a rage and fire and passion in his eyes, his foot slamming down on the ground as a measure of his stand. Intense, fierce love, dripping from his brow as he says 'You've attacked me.'

O LORD, be my victory. You are my victory. Stand before me.

The Science of Tension

2007-02-04T18:34:00.000-08:00

Recently, I looked at the determined meanings of science. (...thought... who decides a word's definition. I suppose there may be some conference of scholars somewhere annually or biannually, but how important are the definitions we use. Certainly even the most distinguished scholars cannot change regional connotation, but over a generation or two, ideas, trends of thought can certainly be shifted, even completely transformed.) And I was intrigued by the term 'systematized knowledge' which appeared several times. Indeed it is systematized. A process has been established to follow with precision, rules put in place to guide the investigator, series of thought constructed as paths to discovery. But does this systemization leave the scientific process an inheritance of bias? Is the process flawed because of its own axioms?

If one were to search for A, then one would propose a hypothesis (and likely successive hypotheses) which aim toward the advancement of the study of A ('A' related subjects or even subjects not related which could hold insight into the workings of A) or even of A itself. This is only logical. However, when in search of A, one could bias himself against the realization of B. So, while A is a true cause or true outcome, one may be incorrect in saying it is the cause or outcome as the yet unknown B is still a factor.

Hmmm. That was a lot of confusing mumbo to illustrate Kuhn's example of how light theory changed from espousing that light is a particle (in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth) to the idea that light is a wave (in the nineteenth century) to the current textbooks which say light displays properties of both. At each stage, research supported the claim and even if the research was correct, it did not provide the entire picture.

But this does not invalidate the scientific process. Kuhn's theory of 'essential tension' aptly supports such a process:

"...only investigations firmly rooted in the contemporary scientific tradition are likely to break that tradition and give rise to a new one. That is why I speak of an 'essential tension' implicit in scientific research. To do his job the scientist must undertake a complex set of intellectual and manipulative commitments. Yet his claim to fame...may finally rest upon his ability to abandon this net of commitments in favor of another of his own invention. Very often the successful scientist must simultaneously disply the characteristics of the traditionalist and of the iconoclast."

Continuing...

Why is 'why' an uncomfortable question? Because if allowed, it (if I may be permitted to personify) is never satisfied. It is an insatiable force with a hunger for more. Last week, a friend (special thanks to "Random Musings and Intentional Contemplations") told me of a game he and his brother would play as they avoided sleep and prolonged the waning day. The "why" game, he called it, and appropriately termed. One would start off with a statement, and then the other would ask "why?" almost indefinitely. I suppose one could either cherish or dread the 'why' side of the discussion. Monotonous to be sure, but I can envision this 'now things are getting fun' smirk grow as the other begins to squirm and fumble for a few words to respond.

And maybe this is what we fear. Maybe we fear the question that leaves us unable to speak, fumbling with thoughts we thought we knew or at least should know. For the scientist, why may lead him to the point at which he must admit (to himself above all) that his principle is still a theory, however well supported and tested. For the Christian [I don't mean these as mutually exclusive terms. They--scientist and Christian I mean--are in some ways inherently interconnected. Instead I use them as symbols to distinguish between secular (i.e. regarding the physical world) and spiritual (i.e. relating to God and the supernatural) pursuits.] why may lead him to realize how truly little he knows about life and God, though more of his life has been spent in church than in any other building. In either situation, at a base level, why forces us to confront our humanity, and acknowledge that even for all our research, exegetical study, proofs, and theorems, we are limited.

Finally...
Science plays a significant role in our discussion of reality, primarily as we base so much of our reality on the physical world and our physical senses. Regardless of whether one agrees on a spiritual reality, we all must (and in practice do) agree on a reality, a sensory reality. Our senses are certainly not the ultimate reality by any means, nor can our senses lead us to ultimate reality. For we cannot see God, or touch the Spirit...but yet we can see and touch Him in a very real way. Nevertheless, the idea is that because science seeks to explore, observe, and understand the world around us (this is not an encompassing definition but at least a working, partial one), it certainly gives definition to our physical reality. We all agree, in practice, on the fact that oxygen is necessary for our survival and that light allows the human eye to see. Indeed, by science we know such things as the reason why an object falls is because of this force called gravity that can be observed, tested, and measured. Science defines our physical, or sensory, reality.

(are physical and spiritual realities then disconnected? no, there is much, in fact striking and inherent, interconnection and interaction-- in a way I return once again to an expanded use of essential tension. The study of the physical world and how we thus see God the Creator and designer is too a practice of this tension. This brief amble however focused on the physical as science related to it.)

The Mathematician Five

2007-01-28T22:02:00.000-08:00

Are the theorems, principles, and postulates of mathematics a product of invention or the endeavor of discovery? Personally this question, or rather the answer, has serious sociological implications. But first, a brief idea to answer my own initial question. It seems clear that indeed mathematics is a process, a journey, of discovery. Before the acknowledgment that 1+1 results in the mathematical sum of 2, babies use this principle when, with motor skills still in refinement, a small hand gathers an accumulation of cheerios from inside a bowl, only to relocate them on the floor in successively greater number, where their destination is clearly more enjoyable, as evidenced by the unquenchable smile smeared along his face just below a streak of morning-orange strained carrot mush. Advancing in complexity, the mathematical calculations behind the pull of gravity on mass certainly existed before ratios and calculations were recognized.

Now, if then, mathematics is truly a process of discovery, an entire preset stereotype hangs at the point of obliteration and complete transformation. No longer will the mathematician be confined to jokes about his "nerdy" glasses strapped with tape in the center, no longer will he button even the very top button of his short-sleeve white dress shirt, no longer will his pants hang at a precarious four to five inches above his shoes, no longer must he wear white socks with black shoes and find himself in the strange company of a certain 80's pop legend who claimed black or white didn't matter, though unfortunately the world still said black socks did matter, leaving the strange bond between the two to remain. No more! Goodbye Blue Ranger, Tommy's now a good guy and it's your turn to be the leader. The adventurous, uninhibited, daring, and dashingly good looking Indiana Jones is the new you. So take up your leather hat and go explore uncharted ancient caverns. I salute you!

...And now, the direction of the assignment moves me onward.

Pattern, nature, constellations, symmetry, order, logic. The universe and our world are in themselves testaments to the fact that our God is The Great Mathematician. Now, a mathematician may not produce the image of comfort or strength one seeks when dwelling on the character of the Almighty, but what an amazing God He is to create such an amazingly complex world of function and interaction. Beyond the scientific intricacy and mathematical beauty of nature, we see God consistently equating meaning to numbers and reusing those values throughout time. The numbers 7, 40, and 12 are a few of the prominent numbers the Lord has scripted in His human plan. How unfathomable that the God who counts the grains of sand and knows the hairs on our head wants relationship with us, reconciling us to Himself through the Sacrifice of Jesus.

Transitioning once again...

And finally, can we place too much value on statistics... certainly. When we take statistics out of the realm within which it is meant to function and transpose conclusion directly into the fields of science, sociology, anthropology, etc without proper interpretation, we misuse this powerful tool. Various aspects of the statistical analysis must be scrutinized before we accept the results and begin the process of application to the question at hand. One vital aspect of stats is the sample.

The sample is central to statistics. The sample is the cement out of which statistical evaluation constructs a tower. Because the sample is the material out of which stats function, it is therefore imperative for a valid, unbiased, representative accumulation of data to be compiled into the sample. Accordingly, a sample will thus prove or invalidate the legitimacy of the entire operation. For example, if one were to examine a "statistical analysis of current economic trends," the statistical evidence (even assuming that it was conducted without error) could be misleading, even flagrantly incorrect simply due to the sample. Questions must be investigated as to how many companies were involved, what sector of the market do the companies come from, how long was the data collected, during what period was the data collected (was it during a comparatively short time of regression or expansion), and so on. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, a sample can enact a significant and biasing influence on the outcome of the analysis.

In essence, one must think. And not simply leap to statistical application but engage first statistical scrutiny. The observer must be accordingly critical of the analysis and the elements which compile to form the statistical evidence.

Irish Folk Opera Funk: In Search of a Real Pen

2007-01-22T00:08:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've had a good discussion about reality. Not 'good' as referring to its qualitative content or personal feelings. Nor do I mean 'good' as compared to its infamous antithesis 'bad' or good in its curiously polar meaning in which I truly did mean bad, as would be the case if I were to say, "oh, that's good" when cleary something bad had just occurred and my intention was plain enough to mean "oh, that's bad" in acuality. It should now be apparent that my meaning did in fact have something to do with a thought provoking, solid, intellectually challenging, good discussion.

But somehow, I think you knew that already...

It seems that even to the most relative relativist, reality is a part of daily life. I realize too that a game (or maybe war) of semantics could begin at this point as to the meaning of reality, a game that I am not currently interested in entering for this discussion. So, I'm afraid for now that if you were expecting this, you'll have to play alone, or if loneliness seems unpleasant, debate the reality of a single-self postulation with the possibly unending number of personas of the mind. ...No, I didn't mean that to be unpleasant. To gain significant depth in the reality debate, definitions would need to be established, especially for the principle player 'reality' and other such crucial vocabulary. Mine however, is a small point.

Call it what you will, accepted reality or something of the like, we all operate within an understood and shared experience. And what if this experience is not real? Again, a problem of definition arises, for it may not be a certain 'real' but it is 'real' none the less. Even a dream is real in that it's something that actually occurs, even as it is not real in the sense of 'real life.' I'm not making a case for the relativity of reality, I'm going some place with this. My meaning is that there could be no communication if truly nothing was real, for one could go on asking endlessly if the words he spoke were actually words, if he were actually speaking, if what the other heard was even remotely what he said, if he were not about to fly away at any moment, or if his lips were not about to fall to the ground (if it really was ground) and walk away dancing to the sweet melodies of Irish folk opera funk. And more importantly, is Irish folk opera funk real?

My point is simply that we have to operate under a 'reality' to function. No information could ever be conveyed without some sort of reality: speech, appearance, and not only the tangible or senses but ideas, emotion, etc. To function, we accept 'reality.'

On Surrender

2007-01-18T22:57:00.000-08:00

I find this a great paradox. Here I sit completely free of restraint, guided only by the necessity to write, and yet somehow my mind falters as thoughts cram the highways of this alleged super-computer sitting atop my shoulders. Somehow, freedom of expression has become an impairment, independence of exposition a shackle.

This phenomena, if it can be called such, is not new to me however. No, it is all too familiar. In fact, as I sat today in my Life of Christ class wrestling with the humanity of this man named Jesus, we voiced and it came to me the danger of independence. First, I must say, no worries Mom and Dad, I am not advocating some neo-anti-independence movement in which people everywhere chain themselves to trees or desks or attempt to attain mental repression in order to unlock some secret, yet undiscovered and enlightened form of freedom. And no, this is not some form of anti-American sentiment in any way. Rather, this independence is one of distinctly spiritual nature; it sits for me at the very foundation of this life I live of Christ.

Here I draw loosely upon my previous analogy and use it more as a theoretical spring board into what may become an ocean. It seems that this "independence" is in fact a euphemism for my will, for what I really want, for me running my life. And in fact, I would think many find it significantly easier to ask God to be the co-pilot, giving a few directions, flipping a few switches, and yet retaining their independence, than offer God everything and live in complete surrender. Indeed this is an unsettling prayer, a prayer of vulnerability. But without this vulnerability, it seems that we are left with independence, and when we begin to cultivate such self-security and self-sufficiency, we can go nowhere but away from our God and Savior. Thus in the embrace of such spiritual independence, we bind our chains of slavery to sin and lifelessness. A dramatic conclusion, you say, but I cannot see any other place for man to be if he is not cradled in the arms of our Savior. A man cannot serve two masters, but he will serve one.

Surrender, then, is where I want my life to fall. In surrender, I begin to see life anew. With new eyes I look around at a world beautiful and broken... and find myself, among the harvest.

"The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field."

Luke 10:2

A serious first post, possibly frayed, certainly unrefined. I suppose it was simply a serious mood.