Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

I have read a number of articles about using a reader in order to keep up with blog content when wanting to read numerous blogs. Tyler Braun wrote about using Google Reader. I think if I were to use a reader it would be one from Google since they, in conjunction with Apple, do in fact run the universe (by which I mean, if Google and Apple didn’t exist there would be a cosmic implosion causing all things to move to a higher state of order which is simply unacceptable and perfectly acceptable in the postmodern era).^ I have elected, however, to avoid using a reader. Part of the blogging and blog reading experience extends well beyond the content hammered out on a keyboard. A reader delivers the content of individual posts but does not capture the fullness of a blog. Many bloggers spend hours designing layouts, color schemes, and headers (or is that just me) in order to 1) provide the reader with a pleasant and artistically engaged online experience; and 2) offer content and links that enhance the message of the written material. Unless Google’s Reader has a content feature that I have yet to explore I would suggest that one simply use the bookmarking and RSS features found in internet browsers in order to directly visit the sites about which you care. Appreciate the art. Appreciate the feel. Don’t just read it. Experience it.

^ For those needing explanation due to the sarcastic language concerning existentialism, postmodernism, and theology(ism), I may write another post with a more modernly-toned explanation.

I have had my Twitter account for a while now. At first I hardly ever used it except with a few international friends or those who are "with it" enough in the states to "tweet." I am excited that more people are now tweeting. A little birdy (ok, that was too far; not funny) told me that Twitter is the new Facebook, a name which continues to bother me since the application is not a book at all. The funniest thing about Twitter is that I have "followers." Now I really have a messianic complex since I feel like a first century rabbi in Israel. I’m not sure if I want to call my followers my "Tweeps" or my "Tweeple." Both terms are tossed around the Twitterverse so as to signify that one is "with it" when it comes to using the "with it" online connectivity tool.

What does it mean to be "with it?"

If you would like to follow me [and thereby know where I am and what I'm doing at all times (yes, i know... captivating and irresistible)] then please click the link to the right (it’s the one that says "Twitter"). Come, follow me… and I will make you ____________________.

I’m taking out for lunch or dinner whoever fills in the blank with the most creative and funniest response. Click on the comments to add your… comment.

I had the pleasure of meeting with Dan Merchant briefly this evening at the ACSD conference. Dan is the writer/director/producer of the documentary, “LORD, save us from your followers.” I also attended the viewing of the film. I was entertained, confronted, and reaffirmed all at the same time. I am definitely going to be purchasing the film and hosting a screening as a part of the film forum of Oakwood Hall. I will also be meeting with Dan hoping that he may visit our community at Mount Vernon Nazarene University.

The following trailer is somewhat vague and does not come close to providing a full representation of the movie. Please visit the website to watch more video clips and read more information.

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=ihvf4ClxLLA]

The following is a thought I posted for my Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern Philosophy course:

Our current “normal sense of community” is actually quite individualistic. Much “dialogue” is actually “monologue” when one person conversing merely desires his/her opinion to be heard and acted upon rather than both parties seeking mutual understanding to consider the validity of multiple persons’ claims and thoughts within conversation. “Communitas” rests in thought that seeks to dissipate one’s individualism for the sake of genuine dialogue. In order to engange in the exchange of thought each one involved in the conversation must view himself/herself not as an individual with rights and truth claims but rather as a member of a group who contributes and receives simultaneously resulting in community.

To seek one’s own individual desires is contrary to the biblical concept of the Church. The self must be an element that is secondary to the well-being of the community. Seeking “communitas” is the process of enacting love for one’s neighbor. Acting and conversing for the good of the neighbor and consequently the good of the community is the demonstration given by Jesus through his incarnation. When “communitas” is in process then love is being made complete.

Due to the potentially argumentative nature of speech, the concept of dialogue in “communitas” must exceed verbal expression. The sharing of life and ideas in a loving manner is more appropriately handled experientially.

In order to create a “commons” in my current context of community I would experiment with social engagement. I would approach dialogue with contemporaries in a manner that incorporates mutual questioning and service. Questioning would involve ministry partners seeking dialogue beyond ourselves and asking questions to others to sincerely receive and consider their perspective. By doing so the concept of “us/them” transforms to an understanding of “us.” The hope would be that conversation would promote and initiate mutual service of giving to and receiving from each other. Experimentation with active service that seeks social justice creates a common missional perspective that is the very essence of the Church.

If everything is spiritual then nothing is spiritual because nothing is by its own existence something and therefore has to be part of everything. To say that nothing is spiritual is to affirm to a greater degree that everything is indeed spiritual.

The actually title of this post is:
“Geometric Philosophy (and the theological implications therein; as if there can’t be theological implications)”
I didn’t have a very good geometry teacher in high school. In fact, my best friend and I sometimes actually taught the class. Geometry and philosophy are things that have always just “clicked” for me.
There is a somewhat commonly used phrase cited as, “It (meaning something) comes full circle.” Can something really “come full circle?” What does that even mean? If a circle is not a full circle then it is not even a circle at all. A not full circle would be an arc (not to be confused with anything involving Joan, the Covenant, or Noah). The entire concept of a circle, however, may only be accepted if one presumes that an infinite number of points between two other points can proceed infinitely to connect with yet another point.
Confused? Try to understand God.

Can arrogance be equated with speech or an action that is one’s own claim of his/her authority? In other words, is it “the pot calling the kettle black” for someone to tell another that he/she is arrogant?

Can an arrogant person admit his/her own arrogance? If so, then isn’t his/her own admittance arrogant because he/she views himself/herself as authoritative enough to make that decision?

This post is to provide a perspective of the direction that my blog will progress for an undetermined amount of time. The next several posts will include thoughts and questions on:

• giving and the juxtaposed consumerism of the supposed celebration of Jesus entering earth in the form of man.
• the neo-lecture given by Rob Bell as introduced in the post below entitled “THE GODS ARE NOT ANGRY TOUR.”
• philosophical wonderings that consume much of my mind.
• life experiences and the subsequent production of community, journey, and revelation of truth.

Please excuse the effect that modernism has had on me as revealed by my use of bullets in the above list.

“Be true to yourself.” What does that even mean?