In Mark, I read a different point of view of the encounter between Pilate and Jesus. Now I see that the gospels tell the story of Jesus, from their own points of view. As I stated in one of my previous posts while reading John, I defended Pilate. In John, I found some arguments that led me to believe that Pilate wasn't completely guilty. In Mark, Pilate decides to crucify Jesus in less than a paragraph and his methods of defending him are completely useless and seem to require no effort. Here, "And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him,to be crucified." (15:15) And that was it. So after reading Mark's point of view, I can say that I didn't see Pilate the same way as before.
While Jesus was carrying the cross, he said the following, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (15:35) This leaves me wondering. Didn't Jesus know that he was going to die in order to spread his religion and save his people? Didn't Jesus know that he was going to suffer? Didn't Jesus predict his death? Didn't Jesus know he would suffer for good? Then why did he think God had forsaken him? Was he in so much pain that he thought God had betrayed him and given up on him? Or maybe, he is just saying this for the Christian reader to know how much he suffered. For example, in the Catholic religion, we pay for our sins and we pay our debt to Jesus for carrying the cross for us. It's our duty. Maybe by stating that Jesus did actually suffer, even though he knew he was sacrificing for love, would encourage us to follow him? This is when I start thinking of the "commercial" side of the Bible, for lack of a better word. I mean, Jesus needed followers, he needed believers. Like Wal-Mart needs customers so they give discounts.
* I would just like to point out, completely removing myself from the subject at hand, how I found another passage mentioning "kissing" between 2 men, an issue that was heavily debated while we were reading Gilgamesh. Read at your own risk: "And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely. And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him." (14:45) So, there.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Mark: The Middle of Romance and Exorcism
I must say that while reading this I felt a bit better about the way of life that the Bible encourages. The bible encourages equality, love, fairness, kindness, and even though it may come to an extreme that is way too conservative, most of it should be a guide for everyday life. What I am not exactly pleased to announce is that some of the lines in Mark reminded me of a Nicholas Sparks cheese marathon or just to make it sound a little better, an upgraded Nicholas Sparks novel. This is the one that made me remember The Notebook's "tear-provoking" lines: "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."(Mark 10:9) "They twain shall be one flesh." How beautiful. And cheesy. But true. Or supposed to be true. Man and woman are one. But it's so contradictory. It's not like they are considered equals, even today, for some things. But things have advanced since the times when we weren't allowed to receive an education or to vote. But now man and woman can love each other as equals. But perhaps it wasn't even meant to be seen in a romantic way, saying that man and woman are one. Maybe I've been reading way too many romantic novels and watching way too many romantic movies, so my girly instinct was to think of this romantically. Maybe in a non-romantic way, it just means that they have to be equal in every single way. If the man gets a cookie, the woman should get a cookie as well. So don't treat the man as if he were greater than the woman because they are one and the same. Ah, but my fifteen-year-old self thinks the Nicholas Sparks version is a lot more entertaining and laughable.
There was this event mentioned in Mark that disturbed me a bit and that is quite often used in exclusive money-making, bad horror movies: exorcism. I'm not even going to google it, the word itself is so scary. But this is what I believe Jesus did to the boy who "hath a dumb spirit", I mean what other spirit could it be? What this boy is described as having is stated in the following quote, "And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us." (9:22) I have to say that I really don't believe there is a bad spirit that needs to be driven away with the power of Jesus, I think that it's just an illness such as schizophrenia or Alzheimer's. This is where I start thinking of all the rest of the things that don't seem too believable in the bible. The water being turned into wine, the opening of the sea, a talking snake, an ark taking in the last survivors of the human race, etc... But it's all a question of faith. I just see these things as symbols rather than facts, taking them seriously would really drive me crazy.
Mark: The Beginning of Hope
In my personal opinion, I found the first chapter of Mark to have a few similarities with the first chapter of John. Here is one of the passages from the beginning of John:
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." (John 1:7-1:8)
Here we are talking about some kind of messenger or witness that is there to see Jesus and perhaps, help him.
Now let's see the beginning of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:1-1:5)
You can see that the same person is being talked about. We are talking about John the baptist that is "guiding" the "light". In other words, John is the messenger that is there to witness Jesus and to corroborate that he is the son of God.
The main difference between John and Mark is that John is not as straightforward as Mark. In John, metaphors and poetic-sounding words are used to represent God, Jesus, and John. John is a "witness" and Jesus is "the Light". After discussing with some of my classmates about John, Mark, and the rest of the gospels, I often heard them saying that John seemed to be the most boring gospel, and the one that required the most analysis because it isn't as direct as Mark or the rest of the gospels. I have to say that after reading the beginning of John, the beginning of Mark was a bit of a relief, events were stated in a clearer way, in my opinion. But in John, it's simply prettier or more decorative, so it makes for a nice read. You would much rather read about Jesus being a "Light" than being simply "Jesus." By stating that Jesus is a light we are saying that there is some kind of hope. Light signals hope. And by stating that John is a "witness", you can infer that Jesus is going to do something so magnificent and miraculous that is deserves or needs, a witness. Not that in Mark the reader doesn't know that it's heading into tat direction. Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and it's descriptions are very much obvious: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:10) The "spirit" of a "dove" was descending upon him. This is another influence I am reminded of that the bible had on Catholicism. In Catholicism, God exists in three different forms: the father, the son, and the holy spirit. The father is God, the son is Jesus, and the holy spirit is the dove. I'm not really sure why the dove, that is something I'd really like to look into. But, without knowing anything else, the first thing I think of when I see a dove is hope. To me, believers are the ones searching for hope, and believing in God gives them hope.
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." (John 1:7-1:8)
Here we are talking about some kind of messenger or witness that is there to see Jesus and perhaps, help him.
Now let's see the beginning of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:1-1:5)
You can see that the same person is being talked about. We are talking about John the baptist that is "guiding" the "light". In other words, John is the messenger that is there to witness Jesus and to corroborate that he is the son of God.
The main difference between John and Mark is that John is not as straightforward as Mark. In John, metaphors and poetic-sounding words are used to represent God, Jesus, and John. John is a "witness" and Jesus is "the Light". After discussing with some of my classmates about John, Mark, and the rest of the gospels, I often heard them saying that John seemed to be the most boring gospel, and the one that required the most analysis because it isn't as direct as Mark or the rest of the gospels. I have to say that after reading the beginning of John, the beginning of Mark was a bit of a relief, events were stated in a clearer way, in my opinion. But in John, it's simply prettier or more decorative, so it makes for a nice read. You would much rather read about Jesus being a "Light" than being simply "Jesus." By stating that Jesus is a light we are saying that there is some kind of hope. Light signals hope. And by stating that John is a "witness", you can infer that Jesus is going to do something so magnificent and miraculous that is deserves or needs, a witness. Not that in Mark the reader doesn't know that it's heading into tat direction. Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and it's descriptions are very much obvious: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:10) The "spirit" of a "dove" was descending upon him. This is another influence I am reminded of that the bible had on Catholicism. In Catholicism, God exists in three different forms: the father, the son, and the holy spirit. The father is God, the son is Jesus, and the holy spirit is the dove. I'm not really sure why the dove, that is something I'd really like to look into. But, without knowing anything else, the first thing I think of when I see a dove is hope. To me, believers are the ones searching for hope, and believing in God gives them hope.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
TTBA
LINK FOR WATER ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1rO1kXSbW5J4LVEMGnk8SNUREobO4iC6nfP3s81qsuck&hl=es
LINK FOR EARTH ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=193a0SDBda5m6xtvH_DOh9pwIr5i81FmXFmKWOOHYyb4#
LINK FOR AIR ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1h6YO8Wky_YUPu-8Zq8F_z78MePDpFnbqOgz9_jd6vhw&hl=es
LINK FOR FIRE ENTRIES
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZh7AJIoaq1GZGZyZHE5ZGNfMjA0ZDI2NXRyYzI&hl=en
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1rO1kXSbW5J4LVEMGnk8SNUREobO4iC6nfP3s81qsuck&hl=es
LINK FOR EARTH ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=193a0SDBda5m6xtvH_DOh9pwIr5i81FmXFmKWOOHYyb4#
LINK FOR AIR ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1h6YO8Wky_YUPu-8Zq8F_z78MePDpFnbqOgz9_jd6vhw&hl=es
LINK FOR FIRE ENTRIES
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZh7AJIoaq1GZGZyZHE5ZGNfMjA0ZDI2NXRyYzI&hl=en
Sunday, May 23, 2010
John 13-21: Jesus and Destiny
What happened in these readings with Jesus and Pilate, were some events I'd been waiting to write about and discuss. Is Pilate thoroughly to blame for the death of Jesus? Yes, it was his destiny and Jesus knew he was going to die to later resurrect. But, there are always the what if's you can't help but wonder about. What if Jesus was saved by Pilate? Is Pilate really as bad as he seems to be? Did Pilate try to help Jesus? And if he did, why does it seem so overlooked?
At first, while reading John 18, I didn't see Pilate as a prejudiced leader, his actions made sense and were not unfair. Pilate asked the Jews to judge Jesus according to their own laws, separating himself completely from the issue as can be seen in the following quote: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death..." (John 18:31) But then the Jews went all complicated on Pilate and told him, basically, that the crime Jesus had committed was so felonious that he deserved death, and they weren't allowed to sentence him to death. Pilate is put on a very difficult position. To sentence a man ,for whom he is not responsible for, to death. To kill him for having committed a crime that does not deserve death. He even confirms it, "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" (John 18:35) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime as you can see in the following quote: "...he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." (John 18:38)
So far, we can come up with a few conclusions. 1) Pilate did not feel responsible for Jesus as he was a Jew. 2) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime. 3) Pilate had to do something, the Jews were going to go crazy if Jesus did not receive a punishment for declaring himself as Son of God. So his next move made complete sense. Pilate "scourged" Jesus. This is the part in which we are supposed to feel bad for Jesus and hate Pilate because he is so unfair! But in my interpretation, isn't this Pilate's move to help Jesus? To scourge him and then release him? To please the Jews by punishing him, but being equitable by letting him go afterward? Pilate did not find any "fault" in Jesus at all, as he mentions several times. But there was nothing Pilate could do about a crowd's uproar and plea for Jesus to be crucified. I defend Pilate because there are these small and possibly meaningless (because he did allow Jesus to be crucified in the end) moments in which I felt sorry for him. I really do think that he tried to help Jesus, "Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12), he was just afraid. It was written that Jesus had to die and resurrect.
At first, while reading John 18, I didn't see Pilate as a prejudiced leader, his actions made sense and were not unfair. Pilate asked the Jews to judge Jesus according to their own laws, separating himself completely from the issue as can be seen in the following quote: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death..." (John 18:31) But then the Jews went all complicated on Pilate and told him, basically, that the crime Jesus had committed was so felonious that he deserved death, and they weren't allowed to sentence him to death. Pilate is put on a very difficult position. To sentence a man ,for whom he is not responsible for, to death. To kill him for having committed a crime that does not deserve death. He even confirms it, "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" (John 18:35) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime as you can see in the following quote: "...he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." (John 18:38)
So far, we can come up with a few conclusions. 1) Pilate did not feel responsible for Jesus as he was a Jew. 2) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime. 3) Pilate had to do something, the Jews were going to go crazy if Jesus did not receive a punishment for declaring himself as Son of God. So his next move made complete sense. Pilate "scourged" Jesus. This is the part in which we are supposed to feel bad for Jesus and hate Pilate because he is so unfair! But in my interpretation, isn't this Pilate's move to help Jesus? To scourge him and then release him? To please the Jews by punishing him, but being equitable by letting him go afterward? Pilate did not find any "fault" in Jesus at all, as he mentions several times. But there was nothing Pilate could do about a crowd's uproar and plea for Jesus to be crucified. I defend Pilate because there are these small and possibly meaningless (because he did allow Jesus to be crucified in the end) moments in which I felt sorry for him. I really do think that he tried to help Jesus, "Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12), he was just afraid. It was written that Jesus had to die and resurrect.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
John 7-13: To Throw Rocks At Them
Jesus did not hide who he was. He was not cowardly and he was not embarrassed. This is a lesson to me. It must take lots of courage to learn how to be yourself without caring what the rest thinks. Just to get to the point when you only care what you think. This following quote from John states it very clearly, "For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world." (John 7.4) But Jesus wasn't talking about himself or what he was, He was talking in the name of God and God only. He didn't give himself credit for "deceiving" Israelites. He was the messenger, as I mentioned in my previous post. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."(John 7.16)
After reading the Old Testament and comparing it to the New Testament, I have found that I enjoy Jesus as a character a lot more than any other character in the Old Testament. He is just so impartial and fair. A person who sees all flaws and understands humanity so well. Someone who knows what he's doing and how he guides his followers. What he said in John 8 was what affected me the most. It was about a woman who had committed adultery and Jesus was asked to throw the first rock at her. Could he be any more noble and just? What he said was perfect, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". It just makes so much more sense than anything else in the world. It makes more sense than killing a man to get his wife, than sibling rivalry, even more than guiding people across Egypt to their promised land. "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". How can you punish a sinner for being discovered once, when you have sinned your whole life without knowing it? Or how can you punish a sinner when you are a sinner and you know it? Does it matter that she was a woman? No. She was a sinner. But so were all the rest who were willing to punish her. They were all willing to torment her and humiliate her in order to hide their own sins and be able to blame her for them. Because if she was the one punished, they weren't to blame. Or that is the way I saw it when reading this.
While reading this I felt a rush of relief because it was as if the world had been an unfair place with unjust ways of thinking until Jesus came along. Jesus came along with his then "unorthodox" ways and changed everything. All that was bad had the chance to become good. All the sins were forgiven. If Jesus had not been right there, right then, and if he wouldn't have spoken, things would have never been the way they are now. I mean, who really knows? This has all just been an amazing example to the world about goodness and values. And to be fair knowing boundaries. The Bible is sometimes called a way of life, and I don't think I could understand that at all until I read these chapters. It really did change after Jesus, and to be like Jesus is not wrong.
But it's not like they listened to him. I'm just saying that I would've listened to him. I forgot to mention that Jesus almost had rocks thrown at him for what he had just said. The crowd listening to him protest is furious. They must have been thinking, Who does this man think he is to change our ways of thinking? It was Jesus, Son of God.
After reading the Old Testament and comparing it to the New Testament, I have found that I enjoy Jesus as a character a lot more than any other character in the Old Testament. He is just so impartial and fair. A person who sees all flaws and understands humanity so well. Someone who knows what he's doing and how he guides his followers. What he said in John 8 was what affected me the most. It was about a woman who had committed adultery and Jesus was asked to throw the first rock at her. Could he be any more noble and just? What he said was perfect, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". It just makes so much more sense than anything else in the world. It makes more sense than killing a man to get his wife, than sibling rivalry, even more than guiding people across Egypt to their promised land. "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". How can you punish a sinner for being discovered once, when you have sinned your whole life without knowing it? Or how can you punish a sinner when you are a sinner and you know it? Does it matter that she was a woman? No. She was a sinner. But so were all the rest who were willing to punish her. They were all willing to torment her and humiliate her in order to hide their own sins and be able to blame her for them. Because if she was the one punished, they weren't to blame. Or that is the way I saw it when reading this.
While reading this I felt a rush of relief because it was as if the world had been an unfair place with unjust ways of thinking until Jesus came along. Jesus came along with his then "unorthodox" ways and changed everything. All that was bad had the chance to become good. All the sins were forgiven. If Jesus had not been right there, right then, and if he wouldn't have spoken, things would have never been the way they are now. I mean, who really knows? This has all just been an amazing example to the world about goodness and values. And to be fair knowing boundaries. The Bible is sometimes called a way of life, and I don't think I could understand that at all until I read these chapters. It really did change after Jesus, and to be like Jesus is not wrong.
But it's not like they listened to him. I'm just saying that I would've listened to him. I forgot to mention that Jesus almost had rocks thrown at him for what he had just said. The crowd listening to him protest is furious. They must have been thinking, Who does this man think he is to change our ways of thinking? It was Jesus, Son of God.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
TTBA Entries
email: sickofarose@gmail.com
link for entries: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1IxmG2twFvzp0Cho3c-6AYrX7cZzTkWEdabvjwG7_RhY&hl=es
link for entries: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1IxmG2twFvzp0Cho3c-6AYrX7cZzTkWEdabvjwG7_RhY&hl=es
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Gospel According to St. John 1-6: Water is Not Only Water
The New Testament seems to go back to the beginning and mention what we were already aware of when talking about the beginning. The following quote states the beginning and is one of the first lines in John,"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."(John 1.1) I wonder what is meant by the "Word"? Is the word some the way things should be or some kind of written form that should be passed on from generation to generation, like the Bible? I saw "the Word" as the way things are, period. Nothing more to say, God is all their is, the answer to all of our questions, the only way of life there is, "the Word". As you go on reading John, it is evident that the messenger and the one supposed to spread the word is Jesus. Jesus was born to spread "the Word". Jesus is God and the Beginning and the Word, according to John. Even though at the beginning of the reading you get the impression that it is John who is supposed to be the messenger, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1.7) But as you can also see, John is actually a witness. A witness of the greatness that Jesus will be and the one who "all men through him might believe."
Something that might seem a bit out of topic and very overanalyzed were my thoughts in the way Jesus answered his questions when he was asked whether he was the prophet or the messenger or whatever he was. "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias." (John 1.21-23) Jesus was very direct to the world about who he was and he expressed it clearly with no shame or modesty. He was the son of God and he knew it and he was going to fulfill his destiny. Jesus wasn't scared that he would get shunned and rejected or even killed. But maybe that is also because he knew he was immortal. He wasn't scared because he had God's protection but it's also nice to think that he would have done it because he didn't care either way. He also had enough methods to prove himself (turning water into wine).
I remember that when I was a child and I read about the various miracles Jesus executed, I didn't think of them as a big deal, and I hardly believed in them. I read that Jesus turned water into wine and I couldn't understand why it was a miracle it wasn't that big a deal. Why wouldn't they just keep the water? But when you think about it, not everything is literal. Jesus is constantly using metaphors that might leave everybody else confused and wondering... "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John 4.13-15) What if Jesus' water is God. What this quote is saying is that you have to drink the special water that Jesus is giving you because you will never be thirsty. If you drink the normal water, you'll survive, but you'll be thirsty faster. Isn't water faith? If we "drink" the Catholic faith, then we'll live longer and healthier? If we choose not to, we'll live, just not as long and not as healthy. I believe John has subliminal messages hidden behind metaphors, that are somewhat persuasive.
Something that might seem a bit out of topic and very overanalyzed were my thoughts in the way Jesus answered his questions when he was asked whether he was the prophet or the messenger or whatever he was. "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias." (John 1.21-23) Jesus was very direct to the world about who he was and he expressed it clearly with no shame or modesty. He was the son of God and he knew it and he was going to fulfill his destiny. Jesus wasn't scared that he would get shunned and rejected or even killed. But maybe that is also because he knew he was immortal. He wasn't scared because he had God's protection but it's also nice to think that he would have done it because he didn't care either way. He also had enough methods to prove himself (turning water into wine).
I remember that when I was a child and I read about the various miracles Jesus executed, I didn't think of them as a big deal, and I hardly believed in them. I read that Jesus turned water into wine and I couldn't understand why it was a miracle it wasn't that big a deal. Why wouldn't they just keep the water? But when you think about it, not everything is literal. Jesus is constantly using metaphors that might leave everybody else confused and wondering... "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John 4.13-15) What if Jesus' water is God. What this quote is saying is that you have to drink the special water that Jesus is giving you because you will never be thirsty. If you drink the normal water, you'll survive, but you'll be thirsty faster. Isn't water faith? If we "drink" the Catholic faith, then we'll live longer and healthier? If we choose not to, we'll live, just not as long and not as healthy. I believe John has subliminal messages hidden behind metaphors, that are somewhat persuasive.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Tao Te Ching 29-47:
I am currently reading this book called A Million Little Pieces by James Frey, a memoir on his drug addiction and his lengthy stay in a rehab center eventually leading to his recovery. To give some background info on the book, once it was released it was critically acclaimed and even Oprah sponsored it on her show, making it an immediate bestseller. Then it was discovered that some of the events Frey talked about in his book didn’t actually happen, making his book part fiction and making him a fraud, a liar and kind of the culprit of Oprah’s reputation after the news came around. This is why I decided to read it, because of all the so-called “controversy” behind it. Also, the different format in which it was written: the dialogue has no quotations.
What surprised me while I was reading was that Frey mentioned the Tao Te Ching.
What surprised me while I was reading was that Frey mentioned the Tao Te Ching.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tao Te Ching 13-28: Accepting Misfortune
While reading these sections of the Tao Te Ching I came to the conclusion that the writer wants to convince the reader that in order to maintain proper order in life one must remain passive. Passive means accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance. And not even accepting the good things, misfortune is included in passiveness. This next quote proves my point, “Accept misfortune as the human condition” (13). Ok. This ignites a violent combustion in my brain, until fumes come out of my ears and I can’t even form words with my mouth. I don’t understand. One cannot just accept. One needs to fight. Should we settle for misfortune? Is it even slightly acceptable to conform being misfortunate? There are just unspoken rules in life that are instinct, unless you are retarded. Rule number one, you want to be happy. You want to be happy. Period. So if you are misfortunate and you are here to be happy, you smile. You make your best effort to be happy. You don’t even have to smile, maybe that doesn’t make you happy. Maybe frowning at strangers makes you happy. So, frown at strangers. But, never ever settle. We can’t accept misfortune as the human condition! What is misfortune to this book, anyway?
These were all my feelings while I was reading. I thought that perhaps I was thinking too drastically about this and maybe I should calm down and keep reading and hope for some sort of apology for this disappointing statement. So I kept on reading and shortly thereafter I ran into this quote, “Misfortune comes from having a body. Without a body, how can there be misfortune?” A body to me represents all things superficial. When you think of bodies, you think of publicity, models, billboards, beer, magazines, etc… You picture beautiful women flaunting their perfect bodies to the world making teenagers insecure and making independent women depressed. Anyway, we are talking about everything superficial if you take the word “body”, literally. It’s all in how much you love yourself and how others love you. Take for example this quote, “Love the world as your own self, then you can truly care for all things” (13). If we reflect physically what we are inside, aren’t we “truly taking care of all things”? Or you can also see it this way, as soon as you love the world as much as you love yourself, then you can “truly care for all things”.
What if we didn’t have superficial concerns? Maybe if we didn’t have a body we’d have more time to focus on making our inner being better and more passive. Instead of worrying about how we look, we’d be worried about how we act because we wouldn’t have a look. We wouldn’t have a body. What if we were all just wandering souls speaking to each other through echoes and what if we had no body or face or anything? What if we were simply air? We would be air that thinks and feels, of course. Would that make us less misfortunate, not having bodies? The ancient masters in Tao Te Ching are described in the following way: “The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive. The depth of their knowledge is unfathomable, All we can do is describe their appearance. Watchful, like men crossing a winter stream. Alert, like men aware of danger. Courteous, like visiting guests. Yielding, like ice about to melt. Simple, like uncarved blocks of wood. Hollow like caves. Opaque, like muddy pools.”(15) Note that even though the writer stated that he would only describe their appearance, he does everything but. He describes what they portray. Their looks or “body” are not important. They are great and wise because of what they are, not how they look. They are seen as “yielding”, “simple”, and “watchful” because of what they do, not how they truly look without taking action. It’d be amazing if we all had the power not to judge a person for how they look before they speak.
These were all my feelings while I was reading. I thought that perhaps I was thinking too drastically about this and maybe I should calm down and keep reading and hope for some sort of apology for this disappointing statement. So I kept on reading and shortly thereafter I ran into this quote, “Misfortune comes from having a body. Without a body, how can there be misfortune?” A body to me represents all things superficial. When you think of bodies, you think of publicity, models, billboards, beer, magazines, etc… You picture beautiful women flaunting their perfect bodies to the world making teenagers insecure and making independent women depressed. Anyway, we are talking about everything superficial if you take the word “body”, literally. It’s all in how much you love yourself and how others love you. Take for example this quote, “Love the world as your own self, then you can truly care for all things” (13). If we reflect physically what we are inside, aren’t we “truly taking care of all things”? Or you can also see it this way, as soon as you love the world as much as you love yourself, then you can “truly care for all things”.
What if we didn’t have superficial concerns? Maybe if we didn’t have a body we’d have more time to focus on making our inner being better and more passive. Instead of worrying about how we look, we’d be worried about how we act because we wouldn’t have a look. We wouldn’t have a body. What if we were all just wandering souls speaking to each other through echoes and what if we had no body or face or anything? What if we were simply air? We would be air that thinks and feels, of course. Would that make us less misfortunate, not having bodies? The ancient masters in Tao Te Ching are described in the following way: “The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive. The depth of their knowledge is unfathomable, All we can do is describe their appearance. Watchful, like men crossing a winter stream. Alert, like men aware of danger. Courteous, like visiting guests. Yielding, like ice about to melt. Simple, like uncarved blocks of wood. Hollow like caves. Opaque, like muddy pools.”(15) Note that even though the writer stated that he would only describe their appearance, he does everything but. He describes what they portray. Their looks or “body” are not important. They are great and wise because of what they are, not how they look. They are seen as “yielding”, “simple”, and “watchful” because of what they do, not how they truly look without taking action. It’d be amazing if we all had the power not to judge a person for how they look before they speak.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Tao Te Ching 1-12: Heaven and Earth Rule Us, It's Nothing Personal
"Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil." (2)
Everything about this is true. What if evil didn't exist? Would good still be considered good or would there be something else? Something even better than good that would ask more of humanity. What if this other good would be so good, that what we considered good would be evil? Just a thought. But as it says, "Difficult and easy complement each other. Long and short contrast each other; High and low rest upon each other; Voice and sound harmonize each other; Front and back follow one another."(2) Without "evil" there wouldn't be any "good". Everything in the world exists in order to complement something else. Opposites do attract seeing it this way.
"If nothing is done then all will be well." (3) Could this refer to peace? To let things be and work out because in the end it all happens for a reason and one does not need to interfere?
"In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In daily life, be competent.
In action, be aware of the time and the season.
No fight: No blame." (8)
This should be put up on a huge billboard on the streets or something, for everyone to see. That we have to know peace and swallow pride. But to be honest and straightforward, Tao hasn't spoken of capitalism and war and politics and why it is so damn hard to do so. It's as if he is describing how one should be with his inner self and in a somewhat small-scale. Personal. Which is very separate from business (capitalism, war, politics, and all those things that make peace complicated), that shouldn't be taken personally. For example in a business deal when you might be forced to evict a person from their home, it has nothing to do with who they are and how you would treat them if you actually knew them. It's just business, nothing personal. No fight: No blame, it's nothing personal. Perhaps on a personal level, the person evicting you from your home would treat you as the Tao says. I do agree that these are an amazing way to be and a great guide on how to live.
Heaven and Earth are two terms that were mentioned in Tao Te Ching. "Heaven and earth last forever. Why do heaven and earth last forever? They are unborn, So ever living."(7) "Retire when work is done. This is the way of heaven." (9) The way I see it, one is supposed to be the way "Heaven" and "Earth" wants us to be simply because that is the way it is meant to be. Because they are "unborn" and "so ever living" and we live here, we are supposed to be the way we are supposed to be. Since "Heaven" and "Earth" have been here the longest and will be here the longest, they know what they're doing better than we do.
I was very pleased with the Tao's interpretation of women and their hard work, which wasn't very much acknowledged in our previous readings.
"Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue." (10)
Asking yourself if "You are able to do nothing?" in this passage might mean that man shouldn't think himself superior than "woman" and let pride get in the way of giving her credit. If you are able to do nothing it means that you are able to control yourself from doing things that might make your insecurities feel better. And end up hurting someone else.
All can know good as good only because there is evil." (2)
Everything about this is true. What if evil didn't exist? Would good still be considered good or would there be something else? Something even better than good that would ask more of humanity. What if this other good would be so good, that what we considered good would be evil? Just a thought. But as it says, "Difficult and easy complement each other. Long and short contrast each other; High and low rest upon each other; Voice and sound harmonize each other; Front and back follow one another."(2) Without "evil" there wouldn't be any "good". Everything in the world exists in order to complement something else. Opposites do attract seeing it this way.
"If nothing is done then all will be well." (3) Could this refer to peace? To let things be and work out because in the end it all happens for a reason and one does not need to interfere?
"In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In daily life, be competent.
In action, be aware of the time and the season.
No fight: No blame." (8)
This should be put up on a huge billboard on the streets or something, for everyone to see. That we have to know peace and swallow pride. But to be honest and straightforward, Tao hasn't spoken of capitalism and war and politics and why it is so damn hard to do so. It's as if he is describing how one should be with his inner self and in a somewhat small-scale. Personal. Which is very separate from business (capitalism, war, politics, and all those things that make peace complicated), that shouldn't be taken personally. For example in a business deal when you might be forced to evict a person from their home, it has nothing to do with who they are and how you would treat them if you actually knew them. It's just business, nothing personal. No fight: No blame, it's nothing personal. Perhaps on a personal level, the person evicting you from your home would treat you as the Tao says. I do agree that these are an amazing way to be and a great guide on how to live.
Heaven and Earth are two terms that were mentioned in Tao Te Ching. "Heaven and earth last forever. Why do heaven and earth last forever? They are unborn, So ever living."(7) "Retire when work is done. This is the way of heaven." (9) The way I see it, one is supposed to be the way "Heaven" and "Earth" wants us to be simply because that is the way it is meant to be. Because they are "unborn" and "so ever living" and we live here, we are supposed to be the way we are supposed to be. Since "Heaven" and "Earth" have been here the longest and will be here the longest, they know what they're doing better than we do.
I was very pleased with the Tao's interpretation of women and their hard work, which wasn't very much acknowledged in our previous readings.
"Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue." (10)
Asking yourself if "You are able to do nothing?" in this passage might mean that man shouldn't think himself superior than "woman" and let pride get in the way of giving her credit. If you are able to do nothing it means that you are able to control yourself from doing things that might make your insecurities feel better. And end up hurting someone else.
Analects Books 15, 17, 18: Existential Crisis and Clever Flatterers
I was very interested by the opening passage of book fifteen. It said the following, "Like Book Seventeen, this book is a lengthy collection of generally short passages without any clear unifying theme." It's interesting how it isn't expected of the reader to find any sense in the Analects, because there isn't any clear statement that makes sense at first sight. It just makes so much more sense as you read on.
When one arrives at an existential crisis, a main question might be "what now?" What Now? Now that I have asked myself all of the possible questions to why I am here and what I'm doing here and what I'm supposed to do, and I have realized that there is no possible answer that will solve my problems because there is no clear answer that will give me what I want to hear, What Now? Confucius is giving away one answer,
"Is there one word that can serve as a guide for one's entire life?"
The Master answered, "Is it not understanding? Do not impose on others what you yourself desire." (15.24)
So in order for me to be guided my entire life, according to Confucius, all I have to do is understand. Understand. Understand others, he must mean; because if we need guiding then how can we possibly understand ourselves? If we did, we wouldn't be looking for the one word that would guide us our entire lives. Perhaps this is why we search for answers all the time.
We can search for answers through religion, conversations, relationships, our own thoughts, reading every kind of book that exists just to see how the rest of the world thinks, and if I think the same way. Being exposed to so many mysteries and things that we are desperate to answer, makes a mind very curious. I, for example, have arrived at an existential crisis. Or maybe just another teenage phase. Because, really, I am not old enough to know what I'm going to be. Or at least that's what people say. "Don't worry about that, yet." But aren't I "being" right now? I am but I'm also going to be. So many thoughts and questions and answers, my brain hurts.
I would like to touch another subject in The Analects, which I think I was subconsciously looking for was flattering. (This is from Book 16, which we weren't supposed to read, but I did, and I liked it and thought I should write about it.)
Confucius said, "Befriending the upright, those who are true to their word, or those of broad learning–these are beneficial types of friendship. Befriending clever flatterers, skillful dissemblers, or smoothly glib–these are the harmful types of friendship."(16.4)
I wonder if by "clever flatterers", Confucius means butt kissers (AKA: teacher's pet or suck up). Why do you have to be overly nice to people you don't even like just because you think it will be beneficial to you later? Shouldn't you be rewarded for what you truly are and for sincerity rather than for being a suck up and being downright untruthful and selfish? I think it's perfectly fine to be nice to "important" people as long as you're being sincere about it. But if you're being super nice to someone you bumped into in the hallways and as soon as this person leaves you admit you were simply lying for your own benefit, that's wrong. Can't people just be nice to people they like and be normal with people they don't? Society is so artificial. In order to step up the ladder you have to be a fake robot with a cheery personality. So I agree with Confucius, don't befriend an idiot who knows exactly what he's saying and why, befriend those who are "true to their word"!
When one arrives at an existential crisis, a main question might be "what now?" What Now? Now that I have asked myself all of the possible questions to why I am here and what I'm doing here and what I'm supposed to do, and I have realized that there is no possible answer that will solve my problems because there is no clear answer that will give me what I want to hear, What Now? Confucius is giving away one answer,
"Is there one word that can serve as a guide for one's entire life?"
The Master answered, "Is it not understanding? Do not impose on others what you yourself desire." (15.24)
So in order for me to be guided my entire life, according to Confucius, all I have to do is understand. Understand. Understand others, he must mean; because if we need guiding then how can we possibly understand ourselves? If we did, we wouldn't be looking for the one word that would guide us our entire lives. Perhaps this is why we search for answers all the time.
We can search for answers through religion, conversations, relationships, our own thoughts, reading every kind of book that exists just to see how the rest of the world thinks, and if I think the same way. Being exposed to so many mysteries and things that we are desperate to answer, makes a mind very curious. I, for example, have arrived at an existential crisis. Or maybe just another teenage phase. Because, really, I am not old enough to know what I'm going to be. Or at least that's what people say. "Don't worry about that, yet." But aren't I "being" right now? I am but I'm also going to be. So many thoughts and questions and answers, my brain hurts.
I would like to touch another subject in The Analects, which I think I was subconsciously looking for was flattering. (This is from Book 16, which we weren't supposed to read, but I did, and I liked it and thought I should write about it.)
Confucius said, "Befriending the upright, those who are true to their word, or those of broad learning–these are beneficial types of friendship. Befriending clever flatterers, skillful dissemblers, or smoothly glib–these are the harmful types of friendship."(16.4)
I wonder if by "clever flatterers", Confucius means butt kissers (AKA: teacher's pet or suck up). Why do you have to be overly nice to people you don't even like just because you think it will be beneficial to you later? Shouldn't you be rewarded for what you truly are and for sincerity rather than for being a suck up and being downright untruthful and selfish? I think it's perfectly fine to be nice to "important" people as long as you're being sincere about it. But if you're being super nice to someone you bumped into in the hallways and as soon as this person leaves you admit you were simply lying for your own benefit, that's wrong. Can't people just be nice to people they like and be normal with people they don't? Society is so artificial. In order to step up the ladder you have to be a fake robot with a cheery personality. So I agree with Confucius, don't befriend an idiot who knows exactly what he's saying and why, befriend those who are "true to their word"!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Faith vs Logic
Logic is what prevails in today’s society and for something to be considered true it has to be proven. I still cannot understand what is wrong about expressing your opinion whether atheist or not, but I guess Cates must have broken many of society’s rules by teaching Darwin. In Inherit the Wind logic and faith are tested. In the movie the facts or books representing logic/science and faith are Origin of the Species and The Bible. After watching the movie I’ve made up my mind and overlooked faith because of its illogical reasoning even though its defenders had the wittiest responses. When asked whether a sponge has the right to think, Henry Drummond responds with a smart, “I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!”
Darwin’s theories (Origin of the Species) are very controversial and unorthodox at the time even though they make a lot more sense than The Bible’s unjustifiable views on creation, which I will come to explain subsequently. We all know that Adam and Eve were the first man and the first woman and that Eve bare Cain and Abel. But, with whom did Cain and Abel procreate? Where did their wives come from? How did Abraham come to be? Where did the rest of the world come from? The obvious response and the logical response would be that Adam and Eve were not the only man and woman in the world, but since the bible did not clarify this and stated the opposite of this, it was wrong. What the bible said, admitting that it was saying that Adam and Eve were the first humans, was accurately describe the creation of man, talking about it as if it had been something never seen before. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1.28) Then there is another contradiction. What the bible is telling them to do is to be fruitful and to multiply, but how is this possible if they only had two boys? This goes along with the story of Noah and how he stayed inside an ark while God killed the rest of the world. Then what was the point of Adam and Eve? They only way the defenders of the Bible could respond to this would be by stating that the bible did not mean this literally and that the stories are only meant to teach lessons, not because they actually happened. Except the Bible never clarifies this, so the Christian religion is led to believe that all of this really did happen.
Another point that can be analyzed and proved wrong, and that was briefly touched in the movie was sex or procreation or in the Bible’s words to be fruitful. When Drummond is asked what the biblical interpretation of sex was, he answered that it was the original sin. Drummond is supposedly a man who knows the Bible by heart and can cite its passages well, by the way. So he was saying that to reproduce was a sin? Very contradictory.
Science is more involved in this point as it involves the whole universe. God only claimed to have created day, night, and the stars. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” (Gen. 1) But what is very much obvious and scientifically proven is that there are other planets out there other than stars and there is gravity and the way things work that can be explained more clearly and with more sense than how it is “explained” in the Bible.
Darwin’s theories (Origin of the Species) are very controversial and unorthodox at the time even though they make a lot more sense than The Bible’s unjustifiable views on creation, which I will come to explain subsequently. We all know that Adam and Eve were the first man and the first woman and that Eve bare Cain and Abel. But, with whom did Cain and Abel procreate? Where did their wives come from? How did Abraham come to be? Where did the rest of the world come from? The obvious response and the logical response would be that Adam and Eve were not the only man and woman in the world, but since the bible did not clarify this and stated the opposite of this, it was wrong. What the bible said, admitting that it was saying that Adam and Eve were the first humans, was accurately describe the creation of man, talking about it as if it had been something never seen before. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1.28) Then there is another contradiction. What the bible is telling them to do is to be fruitful and to multiply, but how is this possible if they only had two boys? This goes along with the story of Noah and how he stayed inside an ark while God killed the rest of the world. Then what was the point of Adam and Eve? They only way the defenders of the Bible could respond to this would be by stating that the bible did not mean this literally and that the stories are only meant to teach lessons, not because they actually happened. Except the Bible never clarifies this, so the Christian religion is led to believe that all of this really did happen.
Another point that can be analyzed and proved wrong, and that was briefly touched in the movie was sex or procreation or in the Bible’s words to be fruitful. When Drummond is asked what the biblical interpretation of sex was, he answered that it was the original sin. Drummond is supposedly a man who knows the Bible by heart and can cite its passages well, by the way. So he was saying that to reproduce was a sin? Very contradictory.
Science is more involved in this point as it involves the whole universe. God only claimed to have created day, night, and the stars. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” (Gen. 1) But what is very much obvious and scientifically proven is that there are other planets out there other than stars and there is gravity and the way things work that can be explained more clearly and with more sense than how it is “explained” in the Bible.
A Geek With Virtue
"I transmit rather than innovate. I trust in and love the ancient ways. I might thus humbly compare myself to Old Peng." (7.1)
I was again inspired by the Analects, I think they are so wise and enlightening.
"I will not open the door for a mind that is not already striving to understand, nor will I provide words to a tongue that is not already struggling to speak. If I hold up one corner of a problem, and the student cannot come back to me with the other three, I will not attempt to instruct him again."(7.8)
I agree with this. I think that a mind that isn't already curious and eager to learn more, is not worth teaching. Why teach things that are not interesting to them? Shouldn't we be interested? It'd be amazing if we could all be thrilled by challenges.
Confucius principles seem to be so passionate, I really like that. It's like in order to learn well you must be passionate about what you're learning. I think it's just instinct. Curiosity. Not because you absolutely have to, but because you are genuinely interested in the subject and you are desperate to know what happens next. "He is the type of person who is so passionate that he forgets to eat, whose joy renders him free of worries, and who grows old without noticing the passage of the years?"(7.19) How amazing would it be to be this way? Completely carefree and happy-go-lucky? Even though I wouldn't describe Confucius as happy-go-lucky, he was probably the type of student that would cry if he got less than a 4 as a GPA. Or anyway that's the impression Confucius gives me.
I was again inspired by the Analects, I think they are so wise and enlightening.
"I will not open the door for a mind that is not already striving to understand, nor will I provide words to a tongue that is not already struggling to speak. If I hold up one corner of a problem, and the student cannot come back to me with the other three, I will not attempt to instruct him again."(7.8)
I agree with this. I think that a mind that isn't already curious and eager to learn more, is not worth teaching. Why teach things that are not interesting to them? Shouldn't we be interested? It'd be amazing if we could all be thrilled by challenges.
Confucius principles seem to be so passionate, I really like that. It's like in order to learn well you must be passionate about what you're learning. I think it's just instinct. Curiosity. Not because you absolutely have to, but because you are genuinely interested in the subject and you are desperate to know what happens next. "He is the type of person who is so passionate that he forgets to eat, whose joy renders him free of worries, and who grows old without noticing the passage of the years?"(7.19) How amazing would it be to be this way? Completely carefree and happy-go-lucky? Even though I wouldn't describe Confucius as happy-go-lucky, he was probably the type of student that would cry if he got less than a 4 as a GPA. Or anyway that's the impression Confucius gives me.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Life As I Know It Would Be Over Without Waffles
I think the most superb thing I have ever known is food. More specifically, waffles. They are perfectly warm and crunchy and are not a crepe or a pancake. You can have absolutely anything with them. Honey, Chicken, Berries, Chocolate, Ice Cream, Nutella, Arequipe, cream cheese, bbq sauce just name it. It is the perfect meal. Not only that, it is the easiest to make. It’s perfectly delectable when prepared in the right way. I don’t think I have ever tasted something so good as waffles. No breakfast, lunch, or dinner can be compared to waffles. Not even PIZZA. If you want to start your day in a great way, eat waffles. If you want to end your day in a great day, eat waffles. If you are hungry during the day, eat waffles. In any size, shape, or color, waffles can’t be beaten. They are superb to any other thing in the world. To live we need food, and if the best food is waffles why not eat them every single day?
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Analects Books 4, 5, & 6: A True Gentleman
I loved how these reading have lots of quotes that are so true and I wish the whole world could read them so that they understood. I completely agree with this way of looking at things and I agree with the perception of a "gentleman" or just a person with values and class.
There was this other quote though that I don't necessarily agree with: "The wise take joy in rivers, while the Good take joy in mountains. The wise are active, while the Good are still. The wise are joyful, while the Good are long-lived." (6.23)
It wasn't really specified whether it was better to be Good than to be wise, but from what I've read so far there is an inclination towards Good. I can now define Good people or gentlemen as a person in control of his actions, swallowing harmful pride, remaining noble, and completely respectful towards the rest. Somehow like the following quotes:
"Do not be concerned that no one has heard of you, but rather strive to become a person worthy of being known." (4.15)
When are we really worth of being known? This can be seen in many different ways because this reminded me of reality TV stars that promote themselves in desperate and trashy ways in order to be famous. A notorious example: Speidi. So to strive to be known, known must be in an orderly way and less ludicrous methods used by Z-listers. You can become worthy of being known...in a bad way.
"When you see someone who is worthy, concentrate upon becoming their equal; when you see someone who is unworthy, use this as an opportunity to look within yourself." (4.17)
If you see a good example, follow it. If you see a bad example, stay away from it.
"The gentleman understands rightness, whereas the petty person understands profit." (4.16)
Leaving money matters aside, what is morally right? If it's not, don't take the profit.
"People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up to their words." (4.22)
I think this is a hidden fear everyone must have. Where will I go to college? Are expectations for me a little too high? Am I doing things right? So people would much rather stay quiet than disappoint or even lie.
"At first, when evaluating people, I would listen to their words and then simply trust that the corresponding conduct would follow. Now when I evaluate people I listen to their words but then closely observe their conduct." (5.10)
Closely related to the quote above, people say many things. Like all the personeros at school that once promised the primary kids a water park in school just so that they would get a vote. They wouldn't know that the chances of that happening are absolutely far-fetched. Actions speak louder than words.
"When native substance overwhelms cultural refinement, the result is a crude rustic. When cultural refinement overwhelms native substance, the result is a foppish pedant. Only when culture and native substance are perfectly mixed and balanced do you have a gentleman."(6.18)
Usually when you think of someone confident and successful in life, you usually think of this person who thinks too highly of himself and thinks he is admired. What we are being told here, is that in order to be admired and appreciated you have to be subtle and being arrogant is not the way. You have to be the complete opposite of arrogance.
There was this other quote though that I don't necessarily agree with: "The wise take joy in rivers, while the Good take joy in mountains. The wise are active, while the Good are still. The wise are joyful, while the Good are long-lived." (6.23)
It wasn't really specified whether it was better to be Good than to be wise, but from what I've read so far there is an inclination towards Good. I can now define Good people or gentlemen as a person in control of his actions, swallowing harmful pride, remaining noble, and completely respectful towards the rest. Somehow like the following quotes:
"Do not be concerned that no one has heard of you, but rather strive to become a person worthy of being known." (4.15)
When are we really worth of being known? This can be seen in many different ways because this reminded me of reality TV stars that promote themselves in desperate and trashy ways in order to be famous. A notorious example: Speidi. So to strive to be known, known must be in an orderly way and less ludicrous methods used by Z-listers. You can become worthy of being known...in a bad way.
"When you see someone who is worthy, concentrate upon becoming their equal; when you see someone who is unworthy, use this as an opportunity to look within yourself." (4.17)
If you see a good example, follow it. If you see a bad example, stay away from it.
"The gentleman understands rightness, whereas the petty person understands profit." (4.16)
Leaving money matters aside, what is morally right? If it's not, don't take the profit.
"People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up to their words." (4.22)
I think this is a hidden fear everyone must have. Where will I go to college? Are expectations for me a little too high? Am I doing things right? So people would much rather stay quiet than disappoint or even lie.
"At first, when evaluating people, I would listen to their words and then simply trust that the corresponding conduct would follow. Now when I evaluate people I listen to their words but then closely observe their conduct." (5.10)
Closely related to the quote above, people say many things. Like all the personeros at school that once promised the primary kids a water park in school just so that they would get a vote. They wouldn't know that the chances of that happening are absolutely far-fetched. Actions speak louder than words.
"When native substance overwhelms cultural refinement, the result is a crude rustic. When cultural refinement overwhelms native substance, the result is a foppish pedant. Only when culture and native substance are perfectly mixed and balanced do you have a gentleman."(6.18)
Usually when you think of someone confident and successful in life, you usually think of this person who thinks too highly of himself and thinks he is admired. What we are being told here, is that in order to be admired and appreciated you have to be subtle and being arrogant is not the way. You have to be the complete opposite of arrogance.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
The Bible: A Reflective Post
The bible has done nothing but fuel my curiosity on history, my current beliefs, the human mind, man’s mind (capitalism’s mind), religion, values, reality, truth, perfection, and basically everything. I tried to see it kind of like a story, something that has nothing to do with me and I was only going to interpret it within it. But that’s impossible since it’s also like any other story and you can relate it to anything you know. The characters in the bible are just like any other characters now; I used to see them as these historical characters followers of God with absolutely no flaws, storytellers that teach us lessons that are always good for us. For some reason I’ve started looking at the church kind of like a sect looking for followers or a company that needs investors. I think I have learnt and gone beyond the interpretations given to me. Instead I can see it with my own eyes and know what it is that I think about it. I’m not saying that the bible was specifically made to brainwash the entire Catholic community or anything, but of course there has to be a bias. I am talking about this in the most hypocritical way since coincidentally my family has started going to church every Sunday and I’m not about to be excluded. So every time I go in and listen to the sermon I don’t know in which perspective to listen to it. I just take the first thought that comes up and go from there. Most of my thoughts have similar thinking as my blog posts on the bible, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)