Foreword: I started this blog about a month and a half prior to its posting. I had a bunch of chores come in between and general laziness. If the blog seems a bit disconnected, I do apologize. I thought about scraping the entire thing, but in the end my what-the-hell attitude got the best of me. It’s not like I have a journalistic reputation I must upkeep or anything. These are just private scribbles.
I didn’t write at all during the month of July. It would be a shame if I let another month go by without opening up Microsoft Word to punch the keyboard with my pointless rants.
I thought I moved on from being irritated by religion, but over the last few weeks, religion has managed to aggravate my already unstable mood*. This last weekend we had a guest pastor give a sermon. This sermon was of interest to me because sermons are usually in Korean at my church, but being that the guest pastor is a Caucasian pastor, he gave his sermon in English. I would fully understand what he was saying and I would be able to dissect it myself. At first I was excited for the sermon, but my excitement quickly changed to anger. His sermon was titled “An Awesome God We Serve” which I had nothing against. He would soon go on to describe how god (The Christian god in this situation) has made everything very simple for us, and that he is so awesome for creating such a simple life, world, and rules to live by. He went on the praise creationist and attempted to pick apart the theory of evolution. He claimed that the universe is simple and that it could only have come to be by a designer. How arrogant to believe that the cosmos is simple. It is light-years from simple. Life is not simple. If it were, we wouldn’t have so many problems. The pastor also claimed that the government should change all its complicated laws to 10 simple commandments, because life is that simple thanks to Yahweh. How difficult it would be to govern the most powerful nation on Earth with 10 simple rules that came to be thousands of years ago. People often make the mistake of applying old traditions that don’t apply to today. Then later, the pastor hacked down the 10 commandments to 2 to make it even simpler. It reminded me of a part of one of George Carlin’s acts where Mr. Carlin deconstructed the 10 commandments. The clip can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwNow966px4
Mr. Carlin also broke down the commandments down to 2 simple commandments
Maybe I’m still young and I have some revolt in me, but it troubles me that people are so comfortable living in these traditional ways, slipping into their neat cubicles without any thought. I am being pressured to actively date and potentially find a marriage partner. Although I have no issue with finding someone you love and trading promises of eternal loyalty, marriage seems like such an outdated practice that many of us don’t need in the 21st century. Marriage seems to be an old practice that had many benefits long ago, but might not make sense today. For example, people are often shocked when they see a couple who has been married for 30 years have a divorce. If the split is mutual, it shouldn’t come as such a shock. Humans did not have as long of a life expectancy back when marriage played a prominent role in society. People were not expected to be with someone for 50 years. Marriage, like religion, is a false security blanket we no longer need in the 21st century.
I will end this blog by saying that “The God Delusion” is not a good book to carry around in public. Unless you are looking for a discussion and having to defend a position.
*At this point in the blog, I go off on a wild tangent that I felt distracted from the main point of the blog. I didn’t want to waste the babbling I already jotted down, so I thought I would insert it as a footnote. After reading this footnote, you can thank me for taking this portion out.
My mood is unstable these days because I’m looking for a place I can call home. Some place where I feel like myself and I look forward to going to. This humble stack of lumber and nails that sits on the edge of Plymouth served me well when I was in junior high. I think I wasn’t always comfortable here in high school, but that’s because I was a high school student. Most normal high school students could have everything going for them, and they would still rebel and still would be discontent. College was a turning point in my life, and so I wouldn’t say I felt most comfortable at home then either. I think to an extent, I had a home in Korea my second time around. I hated how small my place was and that most of my rooms were community based, but I was able to situate myself the way I thought was best. Work was great because I felt appreciated and I did something that I felt was important. However, Korea is not a country I can feel fully comfortable in because of the language barrier. I am extremely strict on myself when it comes to communication, so to have a handicap is unbearable at times. I am doing some soul searching (it seems I’m always doing some sort of soul searching) trying to find my place in America. Right now, I’m jobless and I don’t have enough money to pursue anything. My parents consistently give me a difficult time and treat me like I’m 14. I understand I sound like I’m 14 by writing such a statement about the state of my relationship with my parents, but there is no other way to describe what’s going on. I’d like to get my own place, but I am too financially insecure to do anything like that. I don’t know what I want to do with my life to chase anything whole heartedly. I’m hoping something clicks into place soon.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
"Baby Don't Hurt Me"
“What is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. No more” *
What a great question it is that Haddaway (Alexander Nestor Haddaway) inquires. In Haddaway’s scenario, although he is not sure what love is, he knows it can hurt and later informs that it is not fair. I am most likely safe assuming we all have a definition of love, even if it is not a perfect definition. Here are the first three definitions given on Dictioanry.com:
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
Certainly working definitions, but I’m not sure there is an all encompassing definition of “love”. I should also note that when I talk about the use of the word “love”, I am talking from an American point of view and the way we use to word in English. I feel this is a note worthy because I know Koreans do not use the word “love” the same way we do. Because of this knowledge, I must use caution and assume that other languages might also not use the word as loosely as we do in English. Koreans do not make claims such as, “I love that book!” or “I love pizza!” where we in America throw around the word “love” at every opportunity. This also proves that the three definitions from Dictionary.com do not apply to all situations. The definitions have no mention of, for example, the love for nature, or the love for knowledge. In this case does “love” stand in place for the word “passion”? Of course we understand that both the words might have overlapping qualities, but this is the tricky thing about language. Languages are only as good as the consistencies we give them. For example, an individual might break every rule of grammar in a statement, but we might still be able to understand them. This does not give license to ignore grammar, as grammar is the hope that we do remain consistent with our language, but language certainly is above the laws of grammar. Intrinsically the word “love” is only a syllable of sounds or the contrast between scribbles on its medium. It is the consistencies we give these sounds and scribbles that partially gives the word its value. I say “partially” because I believe “love” gets its other half from the feeling of empathy. “Love” has many characteristics. Passion was mentioned above, and often we hear that love can be unconditional. I have a difficult time making a distinction between the general, store brand, form of love, and the unconditional, Louis Vuitton, version of love because I think love should be unconditional as is.
Of all the characteristics, empathy might be the most important of them all. Empathy gives us the capacity to understand, or feel, another individual even with the limitations of language. There has been a time in most lives where we wished that there were some sort of invention that would allow another person to dive into our minds or the deepest parts of our heart to show them clearly the way we feel. Empathy is that mechanism. I think it can be argued that we can have empathy without love, but I find that it might be difficult to have love without empathy. I cannot say for certain whether women are inherently more empathetic than men, or if the social gender roles have allowed women to grow into a more empathetic role, but I believe a point can be made that women are generally more empathetic than men. At this point in the history of human beings, the phrase “the history of man” applies better than, “the history of human beings.” The world we live in is certainly a world created by men. It is bewildering that women were (are?) treated as inferiors for much of our history. Although conditions are not perfect yet, we have made vast improvements. I believe had it been “the history of woman” the world would be a much different place, and might have been a better place provided that women are inherently more empathetic, and not just empathetic as a reaction to the gender roles that were created by man.
Lately, I have been contemplating a lot about the meaning of love and this constant search for it. I am beginning to learn that the important thing is not to let “love” consume you. Like with many things in life, you have to take it as it comes and in the portions nature rations. I have a love for many things. I have a love for people, a love for knowledge, lately I have discovered my love for nature and the cosmos, I have a love for my family and friends, I have a love for animals, I have a love for art, and I was lucky enough to experience a love for a woman once. There is plenty of love out there to be discovered, to be shared, and to be given. Our responsibility is to keep “love” in motion.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zlViU5PBPY&feature=related
Instead of the original version, I felt as though the Roxbury version bettered this entry.
What a great question it is that Haddaway (Alexander Nestor Haddaway) inquires. In Haddaway’s scenario, although he is not sure what love is, he knows it can hurt and later informs that it is not fair. I am most likely safe assuming we all have a definition of love, even if it is not a perfect definition. Here are the first three definitions given on Dictioanry.com:
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
Certainly working definitions, but I’m not sure there is an all encompassing definition of “love”. I should also note that when I talk about the use of the word “love”, I am talking from an American point of view and the way we use to word in English. I feel this is a note worthy because I know Koreans do not use the word “love” the same way we do. Because of this knowledge, I must use caution and assume that other languages might also not use the word as loosely as we do in English. Koreans do not make claims such as, “I love that book!” or “I love pizza!” where we in America throw around the word “love” at every opportunity. This also proves that the three definitions from Dictionary.com do not apply to all situations. The definitions have no mention of, for example, the love for nature, or the love for knowledge. In this case does “love” stand in place for the word “passion”? Of course we understand that both the words might have overlapping qualities, but this is the tricky thing about language. Languages are only as good as the consistencies we give them. For example, an individual might break every rule of grammar in a statement, but we might still be able to understand them. This does not give license to ignore grammar, as grammar is the hope that we do remain consistent with our language, but language certainly is above the laws of grammar. Intrinsically the word “love” is only a syllable of sounds or the contrast between scribbles on its medium. It is the consistencies we give these sounds and scribbles that partially gives the word its value. I say “partially” because I believe “love” gets its other half from the feeling of empathy. “Love” has many characteristics. Passion was mentioned above, and often we hear that love can be unconditional. I have a difficult time making a distinction between the general, store brand, form of love, and the unconditional, Louis Vuitton, version of love because I think love should be unconditional as is.
Of all the characteristics, empathy might be the most important of them all. Empathy gives us the capacity to understand, or feel, another individual even with the limitations of language. There has been a time in most lives where we wished that there were some sort of invention that would allow another person to dive into our minds or the deepest parts of our heart to show them clearly the way we feel. Empathy is that mechanism. I think it can be argued that we can have empathy without love, but I find that it might be difficult to have love without empathy. I cannot say for certain whether women are inherently more empathetic than men, or if the social gender roles have allowed women to grow into a more empathetic role, but I believe a point can be made that women are generally more empathetic than men. At this point in the history of human beings, the phrase “the history of man” applies better than, “the history of human beings.” The world we live in is certainly a world created by men. It is bewildering that women were (are?) treated as inferiors for much of our history. Although conditions are not perfect yet, we have made vast improvements. I believe had it been “the history of woman” the world would be a much different place, and might have been a better place provided that women are inherently more empathetic, and not just empathetic as a reaction to the gender roles that were created by man.
Lately, I have been contemplating a lot about the meaning of love and this constant search for it. I am beginning to learn that the important thing is not to let “love” consume you. Like with many things in life, you have to take it as it comes and in the portions nature rations. I have a love for many things. I have a love for people, a love for knowledge, lately I have discovered my love for nature and the cosmos, I have a love for my family and friends, I have a love for animals, I have a love for art, and I was lucky enough to experience a love for a woman once. There is plenty of love out there to be discovered, to be shared, and to be given. Our responsibility is to keep “love” in motion.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zlViU5PBPY&feature=related
Instead of the original version, I felt as though the Roxbury version bettered this entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)