In a previous entry, I have confessed that I have little skill or expertise at most sports, but also acknowledged that sports and sporting terms permeate our society.
Decades ago, I encountered a piece of trivia that struck me as profound and relevant to many areas of life. At that time (records fall, so this has probably changed by now), the legendary baseball player Babe Ruth held the records both for hitting the most "home runs" AND for "striking out" the most times. In my limited perspective on baseball, that made him simultaneously the most and least successful baseball player in terms of his batting.
I can keep mentioning that I know little about baseball, but I suspect there is a relationship between the two records. By striving (and often succeeding!) to hit "home runs", he may have decreased his overall likelihood of connecting with the ball at all. A different player might have been content to strive less for power but more for accuracy, connecting with the ball more often but not hitting it as far.
There is a game or device called "Shoot the Moon", consisting of a wooden framework enclosing two pivoting metal rods which support a metal ball. By starting with the two rods close together, and then carefully pulling them apart, the object of the game is to make the ball seem to travel UP the inclined rods. Actually, the ball is traveling downward as it slides between the two rods. My family received this game for Christmas long ago, and we practiced and practiced, eventually achieving a certain amount of skill. For most people, success at the game requires risk-taking -- you must pull the rods far enough apart that the ball moves fast, and acquires momentum. This increases the danger that the ball will completely slide between the rods and fall. If you play it safe, and keep the rods relatively close together, the ball will not slip between the rods, but it also will not travel very far up the incline. The result is the same as the Babe Ruth phenomenon. Increasing your chance at getting the ball to travel all the way to the top of the incline (a "home run") also increases your chance that the ball will fall between the rods (a "strike out").
This basic principle of "swinging for the bleachers" applies to many areas of life. Sometimes, striving for great success simultaneously increases your chances of failure, and sometimes the ONLY way to achieve success is to place yourself in a high-risk position. One of the challenges of life is knowing WHEN this applies, and when taking risks is simply foolish.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Sports
I feel the need to confess that I have little knowledge or skill when it comes to most major organized sports. I have basic knowledge of the rules of things like baseball, football, and basketball, but always have been one of the worst players on my team in situations where I ended up on a team, and have little knowledge of the top professionals or teams. It is common for me to be unaware of which teams are playing in the "World Series" or in the "Superbowl", and I cannot offhand name the most recent winners of either, though I know a few years ago the New England Patriots won SOMETHING because I was happy to have an old set of New England Patriots glasses that I received one at a time where I purchased gasoline.
Personally, I have had a bit more success at sports not involving throwing and catching a ball, like track and wrestling. I was a pretty good wrestler in my pre-high school days, but gave it up in high school. In high school, I ran track and cross country, and in college completed two full (26+ mile) marathons, but was never particularly fast. Still, I suppose I have a better knowledge of track and field than other areas of sports.
I do not mean to imply that I place any of these sports on a higher level than any other sports. My point is that in my life, lack of knowledge and skill regarding baseball, football, and basketball has placed me outside of what I perceive to be the mainstream, whereas my weakness at bowling is less consequential, and my weakness at curling and cricket is pretty much the norm among my neighbors. My college study of fencing rarely comes up in conversation.
It would be difficult to function in our society without at least a passing knowledge of various sports, if only to understand the metaphors. Phrases like "home run" are commonly used completely outside of sporting events. "Three strikes you're out" is often heard outside of baseball.
I, too, use these metaphors, and apply the lessons of sporting events to other areas of life, although I suspect that as a whole we would be better off if our society placed less emphasis on organized and especially professional sports, and less emphasis on competition in general -- but THAT is another topic.
Addendum --
I watched the entire second half of the Superbowl this year -- possibly the largest segment of the Superbowl I have ever watched in my life, and certainly the most since my childhood. I enjoyed it, at least partly because it was an interesting, well-played game.
Personally, I have had a bit more success at sports not involving throwing and catching a ball, like track and wrestling. I was a pretty good wrestler in my pre-high school days, but gave it up in high school. In high school, I ran track and cross country, and in college completed two full (26+ mile) marathons, but was never particularly fast. Still, I suppose I have a better knowledge of track and field than other areas of sports.
I do not mean to imply that I place any of these sports on a higher level than any other sports. My point is that in my life, lack of knowledge and skill regarding baseball, football, and basketball has placed me outside of what I perceive to be the mainstream, whereas my weakness at bowling is less consequential, and my weakness at curling and cricket is pretty much the norm among my neighbors. My college study of fencing rarely comes up in conversation.
It would be difficult to function in our society without at least a passing knowledge of various sports, if only to understand the metaphors. Phrases like "home run" are commonly used completely outside of sporting events. "Three strikes you're out" is often heard outside of baseball.
I, too, use these metaphors, and apply the lessons of sporting events to other areas of life, although I suspect that as a whole we would be better off if our society placed less emphasis on organized and especially professional sports, and less emphasis on competition in general -- but THAT is another topic.
Addendum --
I watched the entire second half of the Superbowl this year -- possibly the largest segment of the Superbowl I have ever watched in my life, and certainly the most since my childhood. I enjoyed it, at least partly because it was an interesting, well-played game.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Slow
I am slow. I have been slow for as long as I can remember. By "slow", I mean that it takes me longer to do things than it takes most people to do them. In first grade, the teacher would regularly pass out sheets of paper with a grid of 100 empty boxes, and during the course of the school day we were supposed to write numbers from 1 to 100 in the boxes, and then turn in the paper. For most of the class, this was no problem. I used to have to stay after school to complete my numbers. I believe this was a bit of an embarrassment and puzzlement to my teacher, because in many ways she considered me to be one of the smartest children in the class, and she could not understand why I could rarely complete my number sheets during the course of a school day.
In ninth grade algebra class, this combination of slow speed and intelligence regularly led to a sort of "tortoise and hare" situation. The class would be divided into two competing groups, culminating in each group selecting a "champion" to go up to the front of the room and solve a problem on the blackboard while the other group's "champion" worked beside them to solve the same problem. I was usually chosen to represent my side. I would be working on the problem, and the student next to me would announce that they were finished. The teacher would pronounce their answer incorrect, and instruct both of us to keep working. The other student would again finish the problem, and again the teacher would announce that their answer was incorrect. After the other student had finished three or four times, I would finally finish, and the teacher would announce that my answer was correct, and our side would win the contest.
Since I have been slow my entire life, I have learned to compensate for it somewhat by usually working at my maximum speed, so I can appear to be working at a "normal, average" speed. This becomes apparent in situations where a "normal" person for some reason is called upon to work "faster". A "normal" person CAN, when necessary, work "faster". Since I am already working at or near my maximum possible speed, I am often incapable of doing anything "faster".
This is one of those areas in which it is hard for people not to view others in their own terms. On the one hand, this all may seem to make sense when clearly explained. On the other hand, it is difficult for anyone to understand why I can't just "be faster". Perhaps there are scientists who have studied this sort of thing, and can offer an explanation. I cannot explain it, but since I have lived with it my entire life, it is something that I am familiar with, and to a certain degree, comfortable with.
I should perhaps clarify that I am not necessarily slow on everything. I am less impaired when it comes to purely physical endeavors, such as walking, running, or riding a bicycle. I suspect that the slowness involves the way my brain works. I have long been aware that if I am trying to accomplish something in a hurry, any sort of conversation has the potential to bog me down -- including such innocuous events as someone saying "Hello" or "Good morning!" A "Hello" can make the difference between me being on time or late to an appointment, as everything I do immediately following the greeting slows to a snail's pace.
Reinhold Niebuhr's famous "Serenity Prayer" opens with, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." For me, this statement represents one of the key problems each of us faces as we go through life: how to know what to accept and what to try to change. My slowness is one of those things that I have pretty much come to accept. Perhaps I should be struggling to change it. I do not know. Truth is complicated.
In ninth grade algebra class, this combination of slow speed and intelligence regularly led to a sort of "tortoise and hare" situation. The class would be divided into two competing groups, culminating in each group selecting a "champion" to go up to the front of the room and solve a problem on the blackboard while the other group's "champion" worked beside them to solve the same problem. I was usually chosen to represent my side. I would be working on the problem, and the student next to me would announce that they were finished. The teacher would pronounce their answer incorrect, and instruct both of us to keep working. The other student would again finish the problem, and again the teacher would announce that their answer was incorrect. After the other student had finished three or four times, I would finally finish, and the teacher would announce that my answer was correct, and our side would win the contest.
Since I have been slow my entire life, I have learned to compensate for it somewhat by usually working at my maximum speed, so I can appear to be working at a "normal, average" speed. This becomes apparent in situations where a "normal" person for some reason is called upon to work "faster". A "normal" person CAN, when necessary, work "faster". Since I am already working at or near my maximum possible speed, I am often incapable of doing anything "faster".
This is one of those areas in which it is hard for people not to view others in their own terms. On the one hand, this all may seem to make sense when clearly explained. On the other hand, it is difficult for anyone to understand why I can't just "be faster". Perhaps there are scientists who have studied this sort of thing, and can offer an explanation. I cannot explain it, but since I have lived with it my entire life, it is something that I am familiar with, and to a certain degree, comfortable with.
I should perhaps clarify that I am not necessarily slow on everything. I am less impaired when it comes to purely physical endeavors, such as walking, running, or riding a bicycle. I suspect that the slowness involves the way my brain works. I have long been aware that if I am trying to accomplish something in a hurry, any sort of conversation has the potential to bog me down -- including such innocuous events as someone saying "Hello" or "Good morning!" A "Hello" can make the difference between me being on time or late to an appointment, as everything I do immediately following the greeting slows to a snail's pace.
Reinhold Niebuhr's famous "Serenity Prayer" opens with, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." For me, this statement represents one of the key problems each of us faces as we go through life: how to know what to accept and what to try to change. My slowness is one of those things that I have pretty much come to accept. Perhaps I should be struggling to change it. I do not know. Truth is complicated.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Year
Many of the units we use for measurement -- units like hours, miles, pounds, or gallons -- are somewhat or totally arbitrary. The "year", at least in principle, is instead based on scientific observation of a distinct unit of time -- the time it takes for our earth to complete one orbit around our sun. The length of a year, unlike many other units, is not based largely on tradition or mutual agreement -- it comes to us from our solar system.
The length of a "day" is also determined by scientific observation -- in this case, the length of time it takes for our earth to complete one rotation on its own axis. However, both of the units are based on what appear to be continuous rotations, without a distinct starting or ending point. The precise moment that one day ends and another begins, or the moment that one year ends and another begins, is one of those things that is determined somewhat or totally arbitrarily, and based largely on tradition and mutual agreement.
It's not that these continuing rotations are totally without landmarks. Our "day" has the moment when the sun appears to rise, the moment when the sun appears to set, and the moment when the sun appears to be at its highest point in the sky -- which we call "noon", though the term is complicated a bit by the issue of "time zones". Likewise, the fact the our earth is tilted relative to our sun gives us two distinct moments when each pole is closest to or furthest from the sun, and the two equinoxes half-way between those two moments. As such, it is possible to divide our "year" into four quarters.
Since both our "year" and "day" are based on observable phenomenon, most human cultures have basically agreed on what constitutes a "year" and what constitutes a "day". Since neither has a definite starting or ending point, different cultures have disagreed on when a year or day begins or ends. Historians believe that the first people to celebrate the start of a "new" year probably celebrated at the beginning of spring, a time that symbolized rebirth.
At the present time, most cultures have at least partially adopted the ideas that a new "day" begins at midnight -- the time when that spot on earth is furthest from the sun -- and a new "year" begins on January 1. January 1 has no particular astronomic significance, and in fact January 1 has migrated somewhat in terms of its relation to the orbit of earth around the sun, as our modern calendar evolved. It is important to note that these conventions have not been totally accepted by all cultures. Various cultures continue to observe completely different moments for the start of "their" year, such as "Chinese New Year" and the Hebrew "Rosh Hashanah", and for some occasions days are believed to start and end at other times, such as sundown.
The preceding is a very cursory discussion of a complicated topic -- I have not even mentioned the moon -- that I invite you to research more fully on your own. My point is that there is really nothing intrinsically "special" about January 1, other than the fact that we consider it to be special. Since we consider January 1 to be special, and the beginning of a New Year, it is an obvious moment for "New Years Resolutions" -- generally things we resolve to improve about our lives in the coming year. Typical resolutions include things like "lose weight" or "stop smoking" or "exercise". It is a time of new beginnings.
Though I cannot hope to change this, in many ways I consider our "New Year" observation to be unfortunate. First, there are the particular ways that modern Americans stereotypically celebrate the "New Year" -- with "New Year's Eve" parties focusing on the moment of midnight, followed by a day of recuperation from the midnight celebration, and possibly football-related parades and football games, mostly viewed on television. This is not to say that all or even most Americans observe these rituals, but no matter what it is a "holiday" period, with associated schedule changes in things like businesses and schools.
A contributing factor is that January 1 falls close to December 25 -- "Christmas" -- which is in many ways the most-observed holiday of the entire year. Due to this closeness, there is substantial overlap of the two holidays in our society. Some even go so far as to consider New Years Day to be the end of "the Christmas Season", the day when Christmas decorations are taken down, or at least no longer lit. The two holidays generally combine in terms of breaks from school -- students are dismissed from school prior to Christmas, and do not return until after the New Year begins.
Finally, there is the fact that in northern parts of the northern hemisphere, the "New Year" begins "in the deep midwinter" -- and actually closer to the beginning of cold weather than to the end of it. Depending on the particular location, and the particular weather that year, "the New Year" often begins at a time when many "normal" activities are made difficult by the weather, and life itself is a struggle.
I realize this is all highly variable, and depends on your location and local customs. In the Midwestern USA, where I live, we stumble into January 1, already physically, emotionally, and possibly financially exhausted, not only from the previous evening's revelry, but from the Christmas season, with its gift-giving and travel and family gatherings and associated expenditures of time and money, as well as other year-end expenses, and struggling against the winter. Even the people that manage to march into the New Year in good condition and with high spirits must deal with the fact that businesses and schools are closed, and those around them are frazzled by at least some of the afore-mentioned factors.
As I have already stated, I cannot hope to change any of this. Furthermore, if we wish to have a standardized "New Year", when the entire world agrees that one year has ended and another has begun, then the northern and southern hemispheres will be observing the change of the year in opposite seasons, whatever season we choose. Still, I believe we would all be better off if the New Year arrived during some more neutral season -- possibly March or September -- and was further from Christmas or other much-observed holidays. Finally, I suppose it would be productive if our celebration of the New Year focused on the morning, facing the New Year "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed".
There are obvious arguments against my proposals. Some would argue that we NEED another excuse to celebrate in the cold, dark days of winter. I am a firm believer both in the celebration of "midwinter", which "Christmas" has largely replaced in our culture, and also in celebrating the traditional "Twelve Days of Christmas" all the way to January 6 -- so, in my ideal world, there would still be plenty of midwinter celebration, perhaps even more than we currently observe. I also have no quarrel with late-night parties and kissing at midnight, but this could just as well be done at the "midwinter" celebration, or existing holidays like Saint Patrick's Day, or perhaps a brand-new "midnight kissing" holiday.
Not that any of this has any relevance, since the observance of the New Year is unlikely to change anytime soon. The fact is that I am struggling into this "New Year" myself, and hope to put things in perspective. Time marches on, and truth remains complicated. Happy New Year!
The length of a "day" is also determined by scientific observation -- in this case, the length of time it takes for our earth to complete one rotation on its own axis. However, both of the units are based on what appear to be continuous rotations, without a distinct starting or ending point. The precise moment that one day ends and another begins, or the moment that one year ends and another begins, is one of those things that is determined somewhat or totally arbitrarily, and based largely on tradition and mutual agreement.
It's not that these continuing rotations are totally without landmarks. Our "day" has the moment when the sun appears to rise, the moment when the sun appears to set, and the moment when the sun appears to be at its highest point in the sky -- which we call "noon", though the term is complicated a bit by the issue of "time zones". Likewise, the fact the our earth is tilted relative to our sun gives us two distinct moments when each pole is closest to or furthest from the sun, and the two equinoxes half-way between those two moments. As such, it is possible to divide our "year" into four quarters.
Since both our "year" and "day" are based on observable phenomenon, most human cultures have basically agreed on what constitutes a "year" and what constitutes a "day". Since neither has a definite starting or ending point, different cultures have disagreed on when a year or day begins or ends. Historians believe that the first people to celebrate the start of a "new" year probably celebrated at the beginning of spring, a time that symbolized rebirth.
At the present time, most cultures have at least partially adopted the ideas that a new "day" begins at midnight -- the time when that spot on earth is furthest from the sun -- and a new "year" begins on January 1. January 1 has no particular astronomic significance, and in fact January 1 has migrated somewhat in terms of its relation to the orbit of earth around the sun, as our modern calendar evolved. It is important to note that these conventions have not been totally accepted by all cultures. Various cultures continue to observe completely different moments for the start of "their" year, such as "Chinese New Year" and the Hebrew "Rosh Hashanah", and for some occasions days are believed to start and end at other times, such as sundown.
The preceding is a very cursory discussion of a complicated topic -- I have not even mentioned the moon -- that I invite you to research more fully on your own. My point is that there is really nothing intrinsically "special" about January 1, other than the fact that we consider it to be special. Since we consider January 1 to be special, and the beginning of a New Year, it is an obvious moment for "New Years Resolutions" -- generally things we resolve to improve about our lives in the coming year. Typical resolutions include things like "lose weight" or "stop smoking" or "exercise". It is a time of new beginnings.
Though I cannot hope to change this, in many ways I consider our "New Year" observation to be unfortunate. First, there are the particular ways that modern Americans stereotypically celebrate the "New Year" -- with "New Year's Eve" parties focusing on the moment of midnight, followed by a day of recuperation from the midnight celebration, and possibly football-related parades and football games, mostly viewed on television. This is not to say that all or even most Americans observe these rituals, but no matter what it is a "holiday" period, with associated schedule changes in things like businesses and schools.
A contributing factor is that January 1 falls close to December 25 -- "Christmas" -- which is in many ways the most-observed holiday of the entire year. Due to this closeness, there is substantial overlap of the two holidays in our society. Some even go so far as to consider New Years Day to be the end of "the Christmas Season", the day when Christmas decorations are taken down, or at least no longer lit. The two holidays generally combine in terms of breaks from school -- students are dismissed from school prior to Christmas, and do not return until after the New Year begins.
Finally, there is the fact that in northern parts of the northern hemisphere, the "New Year" begins "in the deep midwinter" -- and actually closer to the beginning of cold weather than to the end of it. Depending on the particular location, and the particular weather that year, "the New Year" often begins at a time when many "normal" activities are made difficult by the weather, and life itself is a struggle.
I realize this is all highly variable, and depends on your location and local customs. In the Midwestern USA, where I live, we stumble into January 1, already physically, emotionally, and possibly financially exhausted, not only from the previous evening's revelry, but from the Christmas season, with its gift-giving and travel and family gatherings and associated expenditures of time and money, as well as other year-end expenses, and struggling against the winter. Even the people that manage to march into the New Year in good condition and with high spirits must deal with the fact that businesses and schools are closed, and those around them are frazzled by at least some of the afore-mentioned factors.
As I have already stated, I cannot hope to change any of this. Furthermore, if we wish to have a standardized "New Year", when the entire world agrees that one year has ended and another has begun, then the northern and southern hemispheres will be observing the change of the year in opposite seasons, whatever season we choose. Still, I believe we would all be better off if the New Year arrived during some more neutral season -- possibly March or September -- and was further from Christmas or other much-observed holidays. Finally, I suppose it would be productive if our celebration of the New Year focused on the morning, facing the New Year "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed".
There are obvious arguments against my proposals. Some would argue that we NEED another excuse to celebrate in the cold, dark days of winter. I am a firm believer both in the celebration of "midwinter", which "Christmas" has largely replaced in our culture, and also in celebrating the traditional "Twelve Days of Christmas" all the way to January 6 -- so, in my ideal world, there would still be plenty of midwinter celebration, perhaps even more than we currently observe. I also have no quarrel with late-night parties and kissing at midnight, but this could just as well be done at the "midwinter" celebration, or existing holidays like Saint Patrick's Day, or perhaps a brand-new "midnight kissing" holiday.
Not that any of this has any relevance, since the observance of the New Year is unlikely to change anytime soon. The fact is that I am struggling into this "New Year" myself, and hope to put things in perspective. Time marches on, and truth remains complicated. Happy New Year!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Christmas
Christmas is a complicated topic. There are those who would disagree with this assessment, and argue that it is a straightforward religious holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ.
In present-day America, Christmas is a federal holiday, and in many ways the biggest holiday of the year, celebrated to at least some extent by many non-Christians as well as Christians. It is a major economic event, largely due to the purchase and exchange of Christmas gifts, but also because of Christmas traveling, Christmas decorating, and Christmas celebrating.
Especially in recent years, controversies have erupted over the extent to which Christmas -- ostensibly a religious holiday -- is celebrated in our secular society, including our public schools and other public buildings and lands. At one time, most public schools in the United States acknowledged Christmas with decorations and Christmas programs featuring students singing Christmas songs, but this is changing, sometimes replacing religious songs with secular ones. It is easy enough to focus on the secular aspect, since a prominent feature of American Christmas is Santa Claus delivering presents to all the good little girls and boys -- which is not overtly connected to anyone's birth in a manger.
It is tempting to state that Christmas has evolved away from a purely Christian holiday, but the fact is that it most likely never was a purely Christian holiday. Many theologians doubt that Jesus was actually born on December 25, and it is widely believed that the Christian holiday was superimposed upon previously-existing holidays, especially the Roman festival of Saturnalia. Many of the things now considered to be traditional aspects of Christmas -- things such as decorating with evergreens and mistletoe -- seem to be descended from totally non-Christian midwinter celebrations.
In the last century, commercialization has transformed the observance of Christmas. For example, though we still sing of "The Twelve Days of Christmas", few Americans today realize that the song refers to the period of time BEGINNING on December 25th. With the emphasis on shopping for gifts, many now view the "Christmas Season" as ending on December 25th -- though since the celebration of Christmas has somewhat been combined with the celebration of the New Year, the "Holiday Season" may extend to January 1.
This business about "the Christmas Season" happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I do not believe in taking down my Christmas decorations prior to January 6 -- "Epiphany" -- at the earliest, and I sometimes do not put them up much before December 25. This puts me "out of sync" with my neighbors -- many of whom put up their decorations in November, and remove them by December 26, or perhaps January 1.
Yet another factor that complicates the idea of Christmas in our society is that Christmas is a traditional time for family gatherings, and represents a milestone in our lives. People who are terminally ill, as well as their loved ones, hope they can survive "until Christmas". Christmas is a time when we miss our homes and our loved ones, especially those who have recently died.
The complicated nature of Christmas in our society guarantees that each of us will view the season from a different perspective, ranging from a deeply religious holiday to a strictly commercial event to simply a major disruption in the normal routine. Anyone who claims that Christmas is solely one of these things is ignoring the reality and diversity of our lives.
This brief discussion barely scratches the surface. Whether we like it or not, Christmas is a major event for contemporary American society, and a magical, spiritual time for many. We are bound together by our stories, songs, and traditions of Christmas, and by our memories, good and bad. As for the controversies over school programs with children singing Christmas carols and people saying "Merry Christmas", I blame extremists on both sides for finding ways to quarrel over what most agree should be, if anything, a time of peace, sharing, and love, regardless of your own religious beliefs.
Truth is complicated. Merry Christmas to all!
In present-day America, Christmas is a federal holiday, and in many ways the biggest holiday of the year, celebrated to at least some extent by many non-Christians as well as Christians. It is a major economic event, largely due to the purchase and exchange of Christmas gifts, but also because of Christmas traveling, Christmas decorating, and Christmas celebrating.
Especially in recent years, controversies have erupted over the extent to which Christmas -- ostensibly a religious holiday -- is celebrated in our secular society, including our public schools and other public buildings and lands. At one time, most public schools in the United States acknowledged Christmas with decorations and Christmas programs featuring students singing Christmas songs, but this is changing, sometimes replacing religious songs with secular ones. It is easy enough to focus on the secular aspect, since a prominent feature of American Christmas is Santa Claus delivering presents to all the good little girls and boys -- which is not overtly connected to anyone's birth in a manger.
It is tempting to state that Christmas has evolved away from a purely Christian holiday, but the fact is that it most likely never was a purely Christian holiday. Many theologians doubt that Jesus was actually born on December 25, and it is widely believed that the Christian holiday was superimposed upon previously-existing holidays, especially the Roman festival of Saturnalia. Many of the things now considered to be traditional aspects of Christmas -- things such as decorating with evergreens and mistletoe -- seem to be descended from totally non-Christian midwinter celebrations.
In the last century, commercialization has transformed the observance of Christmas. For example, though we still sing of "The Twelve Days of Christmas", few Americans today realize that the song refers to the period of time BEGINNING on December 25th. With the emphasis on shopping for gifts, many now view the "Christmas Season" as ending on December 25th -- though since the celebration of Christmas has somewhat been combined with the celebration of the New Year, the "Holiday Season" may extend to January 1.
This business about "the Christmas Season" happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I do not believe in taking down my Christmas decorations prior to January 6 -- "Epiphany" -- at the earliest, and I sometimes do not put them up much before December 25. This puts me "out of sync" with my neighbors -- many of whom put up their decorations in November, and remove them by December 26, or perhaps January 1.
Yet another factor that complicates the idea of Christmas in our society is that Christmas is a traditional time for family gatherings, and represents a milestone in our lives. People who are terminally ill, as well as their loved ones, hope they can survive "until Christmas". Christmas is a time when we miss our homes and our loved ones, especially those who have recently died.
The complicated nature of Christmas in our society guarantees that each of us will view the season from a different perspective, ranging from a deeply religious holiday to a strictly commercial event to simply a major disruption in the normal routine. Anyone who claims that Christmas is solely one of these things is ignoring the reality and diversity of our lives.
This brief discussion barely scratches the surface. Whether we like it or not, Christmas is a major event for contemporary American society, and a magical, spiritual time for many. We are bound together by our stories, songs, and traditions of Christmas, and by our memories, good and bad. As for the controversies over school programs with children singing Christmas carols and people saying "Merry Christmas", I blame extremists on both sides for finding ways to quarrel over what most agree should be, if anything, a time of peace, sharing, and love, regardless of your own religious beliefs.
Truth is complicated. Merry Christmas to all!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Good
Only One Good
I try to focus on truth, and I try to label things that are purely my opinion as purely my opinion, and what I am about to state is purely my opinion, and I cannot prove it, and I cannot imagine that it ever COULD be proven, BUT it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy.
I believe that whatever is truly "good" for me is truly good for all people, including you, and whatever is truly "bad" for you is truly bad for all people, including me. "Good" and "bad" are "relative" only with regard to the fact that one thing may be "better" or "worse" than another thing -- but things always retain their same position with regard to each other, and this has nothing to do with your point of view.
I like to visualize this concept as a numbered straight line, with perfect good at one end and perfect bad at the other end -- let's say perfect good is at one hundred and perfect bad is at zero. Anything that HAS a "good" or "bad" quality -- many things have no such attribute -- falls at some precise point on this line between perfect good and perfect bad. I do not claim to know at WHAT point it falls -- mere mortals can never know WHERE on this line a thing falls -- but this is irrelevant. The important idea is that each thing falls at one precise point on the line.
To illustrate: Imagine that a pickpocket steals my wallet, and I never see it again. It's tempting to view this scenario as "good" for the pickpocket and "bad" for me, but I believe that this event falls at some precise point on the line -- perhaps "forty-two", which would be more bad than good. Whereas it might have more of an immediate "bad" impact on my life than on the pickpocket's life, I believe that in reality this event is JUST as bad (or good) for the pickpocket as it is for me. Or imagine that the pickpocket is caught and prosecuted, and I get my wallet back with all its contents. This event would probably fall somewhere else on the line, but I still believe the outcome would be equally good or bad for both the pickpocket and me.
I absolutely cannot offer any proof that this is true, but it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy. I claim no ability to know WHERE anything falls on the line between absolute good and absolute bad. The crucial idea is that anything with a good or bad value falls at a precise point that has nothing to do with perspective. I do not claim that this is undeniably true, but it is an important idea in my life.
The cynical and the selfish could say, "Okay, then give me all of your money and possessions and do everything you can to please ME, because that will be good for ME and therefore good for YOU." This example actually illustrates my point. It is probably NOT "good" for me to give you all my money and possessions and work to please you, and it probably will not even make YOU happy. On the other hand, this is pretty much what some cult leaders say, and perhaps sometimes it works out for everyone, and IS good.
The challenge lies in trying to do the "right" thing, the thing that will be "good" for you and for everyone else. I am not recommending that anyone think only in terms of their own self-interest -- I do not believe that will make ANYONE happy, in the long run.
I freely admit that this philosophy cannot be proven, and has various weaknesses. Some would say that since we can never KNOW what is truly "good", the whole concept is irrelevant, and there is no point in trying to do the "right" thing. I say that even though we can never know, if you THINK you are doing the "wrong" thing, you had best not be doing it.
I try to focus on truth, and I try to label things that are purely my opinion as purely my opinion, and what I am about to state is purely my opinion, and I cannot prove it, and I cannot imagine that it ever COULD be proven, BUT it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy.
I believe that whatever is truly "good" for me is truly good for all people, including you, and whatever is truly "bad" for you is truly bad for all people, including me. "Good" and "bad" are "relative" only with regard to the fact that one thing may be "better" or "worse" than another thing -- but things always retain their same position with regard to each other, and this has nothing to do with your point of view.
I like to visualize this concept as a numbered straight line, with perfect good at one end and perfect bad at the other end -- let's say perfect good is at one hundred and perfect bad is at zero. Anything that HAS a "good" or "bad" quality -- many things have no such attribute -- falls at some precise point on this line between perfect good and perfect bad. I do not claim to know at WHAT point it falls -- mere mortals can never know WHERE on this line a thing falls -- but this is irrelevant. The important idea is that each thing falls at one precise point on the line.
To illustrate: Imagine that a pickpocket steals my wallet, and I never see it again. It's tempting to view this scenario as "good" for the pickpocket and "bad" for me, but I believe that this event falls at some precise point on the line -- perhaps "forty-two", which would be more bad than good. Whereas it might have more of an immediate "bad" impact on my life than on the pickpocket's life, I believe that in reality this event is JUST as bad (or good) for the pickpocket as it is for me. Or imagine that the pickpocket is caught and prosecuted, and I get my wallet back with all its contents. This event would probably fall somewhere else on the line, but I still believe the outcome would be equally good or bad for both the pickpocket and me.
I absolutely cannot offer any proof that this is true, but it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy. I claim no ability to know WHERE anything falls on the line between absolute good and absolute bad. The crucial idea is that anything with a good or bad value falls at a precise point that has nothing to do with perspective. I do not claim that this is undeniably true, but it is an important idea in my life.
The cynical and the selfish could say, "Okay, then give me all of your money and possessions and do everything you can to please ME, because that will be good for ME and therefore good for YOU." This example actually illustrates my point. It is probably NOT "good" for me to give you all my money and possessions and work to please you, and it probably will not even make YOU happy. On the other hand, this is pretty much what some cult leaders say, and perhaps sometimes it works out for everyone, and IS good.
The challenge lies in trying to do the "right" thing, the thing that will be "good" for you and for everyone else. I am not recommending that anyone think only in terms of their own self-interest -- I do not believe that will make ANYONE happy, in the long run.
I freely admit that this philosophy cannot be proven, and has various weaknesses. Some would say that since we can never KNOW what is truly "good", the whole concept is irrelevant, and there is no point in trying to do the "right" thing. I say that even though we can never know, if you THINK you are doing the "wrong" thing, you had best not be doing it.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Quotations
I enjoy quotations, but there is no way to escape the problems of attribution, translation, and context.
Though people may argue about the true source of a quotation, the fact is that no one can ever be certain of a quotation's origin. Even if you were present when someone made a statement, or wrote something down, THEY might have been quoting an earlier source, possibly without even knowing it. So the best we can do is acknowledge the person who is generally given credit for being the quotation's origin -- though sometimes these attributions are widely believed to be in error. There is also the fact that many people may have independently stated almost precisely the same idea. For example, various famous musicians are credited with observing that "There are only two kinds of music -- good and bad."
Then there is the issue of translation. Julius Caesar is given credit for the famous quotation, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Julius Caesar did not speak English. Julius Caesar MAY have used the Latin words, "Veni, vidi, vici" -- which is a compelling quotation, even for someone who does not speak Latin. I do not know who first translated "Veni, vidi, vici" into "I came, I saw, I conquered". They COULD have translated it as "I arrived, I viewed, and I subjugated", but that does not seem nearly as eloquent. My point is that the translator really should share the credit for many quotations, but rarely does.
Finally, there is the matter of context. It is tempting to assume that if someone says or writes something, it is something that they themselves believe to be true. This is often a false assumption. Quotations often come from works of fiction, or a person may even be ridiculing a certain idea. Many famous quotations come from Shakespeare, and many of these are spoken by characters in plays. The fact that a character in a play states, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" does not mean that Shakespeare himself was opposed to borrowing and lending, yet the quotation is attributed to Shakespeare. (I am deliberately ignoring the scholarly questions regarding the true source of Shakespeare's plays.)
Despite the facts that we can never be sure of the original source of any quotation, and many quotations are translations from other languages, and the quotation may not represent the actual belief of the person who made the statement, quotations eloquently present ideas for further contemplation. I do my best to give credit where credit is due, but I claim no certainty.
Though people may argue about the true source of a quotation, the fact is that no one can ever be certain of a quotation's origin. Even if you were present when someone made a statement, or wrote something down, THEY might have been quoting an earlier source, possibly without even knowing it. So the best we can do is acknowledge the person who is generally given credit for being the quotation's origin -- though sometimes these attributions are widely believed to be in error. There is also the fact that many people may have independently stated almost precisely the same idea. For example, various famous musicians are credited with observing that "There are only two kinds of music -- good and bad."
Then there is the issue of translation. Julius Caesar is given credit for the famous quotation, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Julius Caesar did not speak English. Julius Caesar MAY have used the Latin words, "Veni, vidi, vici" -- which is a compelling quotation, even for someone who does not speak Latin. I do not know who first translated "Veni, vidi, vici" into "I came, I saw, I conquered". They COULD have translated it as "I arrived, I viewed, and I subjugated", but that does not seem nearly as eloquent. My point is that the translator really should share the credit for many quotations, but rarely does.
Finally, there is the matter of context. It is tempting to assume that if someone says or writes something, it is something that they themselves believe to be true. This is often a false assumption. Quotations often come from works of fiction, or a person may even be ridiculing a certain idea. Many famous quotations come from Shakespeare, and many of these are spoken by characters in plays. The fact that a character in a play states, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" does not mean that Shakespeare himself was opposed to borrowing and lending, yet the quotation is attributed to Shakespeare. (I am deliberately ignoring the scholarly questions regarding the true source of Shakespeare's plays.)
Despite the facts that we can never be sure of the original source of any quotation, and many quotations are translations from other languages, and the quotation may not represent the actual belief of the person who made the statement, quotations eloquently present ideas for further contemplation. I do my best to give credit where credit is due, but I claim no certainty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)