Taking a Chance on a Crutch

"I've read your book and you have some serious character flaws."  Perhaps you've heard this kind of thing before.

Externalization happens when somebody refuses to take words to heart. It is a defense mechanism, indicative of cowardice (perhaps resulting from wounding); a mind that cannot accept correction because it is afraid it will break. That mind has already made an idol of itself: that it cannot rely on any Other but itself. But of course, we need each other.

So when the words come that must be internalized, in advanced cases a thickened membrane has formed over the brain that bounces back the message in the form of an attack on the source, the idea and/or blame laying of the problem to anywhere but self. (N.B. :This too can work in reverse in the "I am to blame because I secretly think that I should be able to do it all" paradigm)

The inward message is also likely to cause offense, because hey, how dare you even suggest that I am wrong? I'm wise after all. I know what's really causing the problem: its you, and that other guy, my boss, my spouse, my girlfriend, my boyfriend, my church, my in laws, my family, my dog, and the bad latte I had this morning.

There are added complications of course. When we unreflectively start blaming other sources for our problems there are inevitable contradictions in our speech. In fact, it starts out as incongruities in our stories, but ends up being externally what it is internally: lying. If we lie to ourselves we will inevitably lie to others simply to avoid the conclusion that there's something wrong with us.

The incongruities I refer to are those things which we blame as the source of ills or possible ills. It is very easy to blame circumstances or states of affairs as the source of problems or failures. For example, one could say that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Therefore, being rich equals trouble. This kind of thinking will lead one into trouble, because lacking riches, it could be argued sensibly, leads to stealing, marital breakup and other social vices, which also may in turn cost you your soul. In this case of course, I'm not advocating that we all become communists but I am saying that the source of the vice is not actually in the state of affairs, but in humanity itself. (Sorry communism, humanism)

The well adjusted person, perhaps the wise person we might say, is not the one who avoids every manner of circumstance that suggests trouble, but rather is well informed about what pressures situations can bring to bear upon his or her own faulty humanity. This is why proverbs can be antithetical; worldly wisdom is on a hinge, difficult situations swing upon a personality. The person who avoids every circumstance of danger (There is a lion in the street!) we would call a coward or a sluggard. The person who charges into every circumstance of danger we would call a fool. (I'm feeling like Aristotle right now)

Many will call this the virtue of the mean (or whatever those Greeks called it). But we could also call this mediocrity, and beyond that, what exactly determines when to be mean and when not to? (I like being mean. Whats wrong with that?)

Bringing around the discussion back to the unreflective person, you'll easily see now how these various do's and don'ts actually end up being a prison for many people. They not only cower in a self made cage of mediocrity, but they also make statements to different people at different times saying wildly different things. At first they are just incongruities, but if a person wisens up at all to the ludicrous swings of the self-hinge, eventually he will start lying to avoid admitting that he is the gatekeeper.

Now here's the point to really catch I think. In order to venture out into situations that endanger any normal human being in any number of ways (like motherhood, marriage, military or star trek conventions) you must have what the externalizing person does not: internal strength from reliance on an Other. The ability to venture out into danger corresponds to one's concept of personal security. For some people it is sheer delusion, "This will never happen to me" or "love conquers all" or "I have the speed and skills with nunchucks of Chuck Norris", but for everyone it comes down to what one trusts in to keep oneself safe.

There are a whole host of things that can make you feel assured of success, and just as there are many sensible things to avoid, there are many sensible things to remedy the ills. There's just one problem: sensible things aren't eternal things. They are quite literally not eternal because they are just that...sense-able.

I want to suggest, not so subtly, that you don't have to be afraid of anything or anybody if you have a personal eternal crutch. Personally, I am not ashamed to admit that I am so lame I stumble and fall like a drunken manatee when I attempt to walk on my own. I am ashamed however, when I walk out the door without the Crutch, believing I have healed myself.

It's okay though. After I clean up the blood, I remember that after I have suffered the disaster of death, I'll never be lame again.

you really must deal with the literature!

Do you ever find it funny when an author comments on another author for"not having adequately dealt" with some particular subject?

What I mean is, the writer being scrutinized sometimes has not "adequately dealt" with some subject because it was never a subject that needed or was intended to be dealt with. For example, one could commonly beg the question from Luther, whether he adequately showed what motivates a believer to live a holy life if he is covered by divine grace.

But this question is like so many others demanding 'effective treatment' of this or that; it reveals a mind captive to a smaller way of thinking- a mind that has never really engaged with the subject. And all at once, the book loses the greatest of all credits: demonstrable inward looking wisdom.

Sometimes, declaring that more explanation must be given is comical and self defeating; it is like asking a prisoner how in the world he will make a living if he loses his iron shackles.

Dealing with the literature is important; but dealing with oneself in relation to it is indispensable.

Playing God

I've realized that computer games which engross human beings most do so by creating three things:

1. Creating worlds.
2. Creating purpose.
3. Creating community.

No other media has ever been able to do this so well. With current technology it is not only possible for computer games to imitate the reality of the spatial world, but its size of our planet as well. In addition, the placement of a character within an online community makes it possible for a human being to live out a life within a character which does not, for whatever reason, exist in reality. An online community reinforces the particular purposes of the game, connects minds and grants the ability to create relationships even in the real world.

Purpose in a game can be as simple as the annihilation of all competition to diplomacy to a combination of many different goals or threads.

What world creators will never be able to do however, is copy the infinite, the eternal which is everywhere present in the universe, in each of the said three forms.

1. Spatial infinitude
2. Purpose (meaning)
3. Psycho spiritual infinitude



The universe, I think, could be easily argued to be infinite in its scope. The space of being and non-being cannot even be understood as a complete concept, wherever we go, smaller or larger, further, closer, we are infinitely confronted by the infinite. Before we saw the vast expanses of space, we already had the strange concept of infinity in mathematics. It has not left science as a strange problem. I do not think it will.

Games do something that books and movies do not: they create purposes and meaning specifically for the individual playing the game. But games created by human beings for human beings can never reach beyond the level of the human; additionally, purpose in a game is rooted in the game itself, and consequently goes no further than the game itself and the skill it requires.

Game characters will never expend the character pool of real individuals in the world, nor will character relationships be able to replicate fully the relations of those human beings who exist and interact in the real world. In other words, you are unique, and no matter how many characters are invented, they will never expend the uniqueness of human individuals as it astoundingly crops up from one generation to the next.

My point is not a denunciation of the versatility of games nor a perpetuation of their undervalued status as an absolutely unrivalled artistically holistic art form. Human beings integrate and can modify the gaming experience for their entertainment in such a radical way that it can be nearly unrecognizable from the original party which created the game. Games are extremely 'moddable' - which is what makes them powerful; but it is also what makes them dangerous. Electronic gaming is the most powerful psychotropic drug known to humankind and the greatest distraction from reality ever devised; its capacity to mimic eternity grows with each passing day.

Imitation, it has been said, is the sincerest form of flattery. Art imitates infinitude (that's what we really meant by "art imitates life"). Celebrate art. Celebrate good games like you would good film, good music, good paintings.

But imitation can not only be flattery: it can be supreme deceit. Games aren't real, but they can still take away a life; and a fulfilled eternity.

Book Burning

Don't believe people when they tell you that book burning is something only fascists do. Nonsense! Communists do it too. "Tolerance" would have us outlawing "hate" speech before it hits the press (it's shameful that the Bible, Talmud or Koran make such nasty value statements). Religious doubters, believers and deniers alike have been enjoying a good word burn for years.

Books make excellent kindling after all. They are dry (hopefully) and are made of delightfully flammable materials. Torn pages from even a single book can help light a fire daily for a whole week or more!

I think you'll agree, some books are worth more burning on a fire than they are remaining in print, (age, size, illustrations can all be quite irrelevant). Instead of turning away someone cold saying "be warmed" why not heat up his limbs to the glow of a few worthless books?

Now many, perhaps the vast majority of books currently in print (there are a lot of Harlequin novels, trust me) are useless worthless trash, much like large chunks of the film industry.

OK so lets get to the real point, when is it okay to light up?
Book burning must be voluntary, it must be from one's own collection.

Now of course, certain materials, such as child pornography, nuclear weapons schematics, etc. are outlawed by government (an outside hand restricting your collection) for the protection of the public - that is the business of the government right? We might argue for more outlawed books; like 'hate' literature or ALL pornography. Yes that would probably be beneficial for society in many ways.

Is this a double standard? Government dipping into somebody's collection while I insist that we should only be allowed to burn our own books? I think the fact that God is true though every man be made a liar has something to do with it. But generally speaking (civil liberties-wise), the things that are outlawed are so because they are considered grievously close to or already violating the safety of society.

Inherent is this idea: ideas, images are not imminently dangerous until they are acted upon (acted in a holistic sense). It is generally accepted that the plans, materials and methods used to build bombs are considered so risky to life that they should not be freely disseminated. Why? Because of the minds that will make them a reality.

But you should now be touting a proud pair of dilemmas (and this is really what I wanted to talk about); First, child porn and nukes are not the only media damaging humanity, why not outlaw more? Second, who gets to decide what's right and wrong and who gets to have power with what information?

The world is a mess and the Devil would sure like to clean it up for you. Remain where you are, don't get concerned and whatever you do, don't act on any dangerous ideas; or, heaven forbid, become a fascist and start burning books.