Life according to Gordon

I dream pretty regularly. Well, I mean, technically everyone dreams every night, but what I mean to say is that I remember my dreams (or at least the last dream of the night) with pretty regular frequency. And they are sometimes strange. Like last night, I dreamt that I was at Six Flags, on a date with a certain girl, which led up to a kiss. Except the whole time I was aware that it was a dream, but simultaneously not completely aware that it was a dream. Basically, I knew that I pretty much had complete control over the universe I was perceiving at that moment, but I didn't think of it as a dream; it seemed real (because once you know that you really are dreaming, it all just seems trite). And maybe this is just the ridiculous perfectionist in me shining through, but shortly after kissing her, I decided that I wasn't wholly satisfied with how the date went, so I rewound a bit and started to redo things. But apparently that was a bad idea, because the second time I went in for a kiss, her face transformed into the face of a horrible demon with bad hair.

I'm pretty sure that there was a lot more to it as well, but unfortunately I often have the same problem with dreams that Randall Munroe described very succinctly in his web comic. And I'm not sure how to interpret that one, either. I'm thinking that either 1) it has no deeper meaning, 2) I am way too much of a perfectionist, and I should not try to do things over again at the risk of people I know literally turning into demons, or 3) this particular girl I was thinking of is actually a succubus. (Leaning toward #1.)

But that's certainly not the strangest dream I've ever had. There was the time that I was teaching a high school home economics class--except I was teaching them how to sing opera--alongside with Dr. Cox and Dr. Kelso from Scrubs. Since it was a home ec class, they had microwaves and stoves and whatnot situated in the classroom. Those students sitting by the stoves, which were located in the back, took the lower parts, naturally. And then there was the time when I was young that I had a dream that I was falling off a cliff, only to suddenly wake up to the fact that I was no longer in the top bunk of my bed, but instead on the floor. And my arm hurt. That sucked. Or another dream I still remember from when I was young, in which I was playing with flowers on what was essentially a comet (but actually just a broken off piece of the Earth) with an eco-dome containing a decent sized grassy field and holding in all the oxygen. Then all of a sudden some WWII fighter planes started dropping bombs, and I could no longer feel my legs and was unable to walk. I remember getting up out of bed and walking into my parent's room, crying, and yelling, "Mom! I can't walk! I can't walk!" I would say I was still about 65% asleep as I yelled that (while walking).

And then a few years ago I started having infidelity dreams that scared the shit out of me for awhile, because that's not something I would even dream about doing in a million years (or so I thought). I've also had some pretty creepy dreams, where I've done terrible, terrible things that would never happen in real life. All I really learned from those are that you can't really control the dreams you have, so even if dream-Gordon can be a real dick sometimes, real-Gordon doesn't have to be. On the other side of the spectrum, every once in awhile I get sex dreams. Those are usually fun.

And then there was the time I had a dream in which Catholicism became the dominant religion on the planet in the future, completely eliminating anyone not in the faith or assimilating them into it. And since it was the future, we had pretty much exhausted the planet of all its natural resources and moved on to space exploration, while the Vatican had left two robots in charge of resuscitating the Earth. (I swear on my honor as an Eagle Scout that I had this dream before ever hearing of WALL-E, by the way.) One of the robots was quite large, bulky, and strong, but somewhat limited in his mobility and reach because of his size. The other robot was small, quick, feisty and could fly. And for some reason, something had malfunctioned in the latter robot so that it was a little bit crazy and decided to live on the top of a tall, vertical filing cabinet. Interestingly enough, this filing cabinet contained a super concentrated explosive device in the top drawer capable of completely and forever eliminating the entire universe. And it was just out of reach of the bigger, sane robot. And since the smaller robot was crazy, he kept almost accidentally setting it off. This sent the larger robot into a panic several times. I remember him saying things like, "DO YOU HATE JESUS?!" I remember this one pretty vividly, because I wrote it down right after waking up, immediately thinking, "that would be a fantastic idea for a cartoon."

But yeah. I have strange dreams. Leave a comment if you want to see if you can one-up me with your own stories of strange dreams, or if you want to offer psychoanalysis on any of mine.

Abstract: You're not always right. People are killing themselves, so stop being so freaking stubborn about whatever it is you're so sure of and stop being an elitist prick. Yes, you.

1 in 119 deaths is a suicide. That means that of the 6½-billion people in the world, 55-million would rather die and forfeit the gift of life than continue trudging on. That is a very big number. It's not as big as cancer, which claims 1 in 7, but you might say that it's still kind of a problem. And suicide rates in Japan are skyrocketing, especially among men. Those kind of figures shock and abhor me, but at the same time (believe it or not), they don't really surprise too much. Fundamentally, I think that society, and indeed certain aspects of human nature, are to blame for such high numbers. And the cynic in me truly does not believe this is a problem that will ever get solved. I mean, let's face it: history has been repeating itself for a really long time. Are things really much different from how they were millenia ago? Are people much different? The problems seem just as fierce as they ever were. But I'm not for a second suggesting that these problems should be ignored. Quite to the contrary, with so many people killing themselves, this is not really a good topic to be apathetic about.

But I've been thinking lately that the whole approach to "handling" things like this is fundamentally flawed, and the approach itself reflects and reveals deeper problems of human nature. And interestingly enough, it also is somewhat analogous to quantum physics. Let me explain. Imagine that you have Person A, who is "suicidal". When people talk about Person A, what is usually discussed are the problems (s)he is having in terms of mental illness, implying that there's something defective about Person A, thereby destroying or inhibiting his/her will to live. But in having such a discussion, the impact and judgment of Person B on Person A is completely overlooked. "Person B" is the person who is doing the discussing and analyzing of Person A, and labeling him/her as mentally ill. And perhaps it's not semantically correct to use the term "Person B," since this is generally more representative of a group of people rather than a single individual solely responsible for diagnosis. But I'm going to stick with the simpler term for the sake of argument. Person B examines the suicidal tendencies in Person A as if they were an unbiased observer (especially if Person B is a psychologist), but I don't think this is quite the correct thing to do. I'll try to explain.

In quantum physics, you learn that the act of observing can fundamentally alter the behavior of whatever is being observed. I found a very interesting video that explains this as clearly as possible that I recommend you check out. The format is pretty weird, with a ridiculous, CGI, superhero professor, but the explanation is quite elaborate and easy to follow. But back on track: I believe that the mere act of observing, analyzing, and categorizing another human being can fundamentally alter that human being's behavior. This is because the idea that one human being (Person B) can analyze and subsequently "fix" another (Person A) fundamentally operates from the naive model that Person A is simply an object to be repaired, which ironically makes it easy to forget that Person A is actually a human being. Sucidial thoughts are viewed as strictly incorrect and something to be resolved, when in fact they may just be normal behavior for someone under a lot of duress. This doesn't mean that I think suicidal thoughts in anyone are a good thing, but it does mean that I believe a person isn't necessarily "ill" or "flawed" just because said thoughts exist, but rather they may be responding to an excess of negative stimuli (which is not necessarily easily perceived by an outside observer) in a mostly natural way.

But the model we have inadvertently set up implies that the mere existence of negative thoughts implies that Person A is a mistake to be corrected, whether through conformity to behavioral norms even when this may not be in his/her best interest, or through heavy medication. This affirms an implicit judgment that Person A is flawed. But I would be more inclined to question any such judgment passed on Person A, and furthermore I would suggest that this norm of categorizing Person A as sick or flawed can do more harm than good to A's psyche in the long run. Person A may start to accept whatever labels (s)he has been assigned, and either consciously or unconsciously come to accept them, somewhat akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy. And to expound a bit more on my previous reference to quantum physics, we mustn't forget that Person A is constantly analyzing and observing everything that Person B is doing as well. Even with a degree in psychology or what have you, you still end up with (at least) two human beings analyzing each other.

Person A's analysis may not be well-formed, or even intentional, but generally speaking, as humans we care about what others think of us. We have a sense of "self image," which as I have witnessed can be over exaggerated in a good number of people. When Person A learns of whatever discoveries B has made, (s)he will likely take these to heart. That doesn't mean the discoveries are invalid, but I am suggesting that they can have an unintended impact. This is because human beings aren't lab rats and never will be. I don't believe it's possible to examine someone else's psyche without having some sort of impact on it, because we are self aware, and conscious of whatever analysis is taking place. As mentioned in the video, electrons behave differently depending on how you look at them. When you view them in a way in which you would expect to see particles, you get particles. And when you look at them looking for waves, you get waves. (Particles and waves behave in completely different ways, in case you didn't watch the video above).

But getting back to another concept I mentioned: again, the mere existence of suicidal thoughts does not necessarily mean that a person is mentally ill, no matter how elaborate. The entire concept of mental illness is a hard one to approach, since it is entirely a human construct. From a materialist standpoint, human beings are composed of blood, bones, neurons, and so forth, and this is completely responsible for human life and behavior. The more popular, dualist view asserts that in addition to these components of the body, there is also a mind and a soul, independent of the body but housed in it. The theory I generally subscribe to is more idealist in nature, but expounding on that here would detract from the goal of this post. But both dualism and idealism suggest that the mind and consciousness is at least not necessarily governed solely by hormones and random synapses firing in the brain, but instead that the human mind may be at least somewhat transient of the physical. If this is the case, that human beings are more than just animals or complex wiring, then the entire concept of mental illness, which is a fundamentally materialist view, is flawed. How are we to judge that a person's mind is "broken"? And aren't we just ultimately asserting that others should conform to whatever beliefs and behaviors we hand select? From the materialist standpoint that the mind is nothing more than chemicals, the ultimate result is that there are strict ways of measuring and balancing one's mind. But if we believe even for a second that the mind is not a slave to the body, but instead the other way around, there is ultimately no way to accurately and consistently measure whether a mind is "right" or "wrong."

A common symptom of depression is feeling that no one really understands or can empathize with the negative feelings a person is going through. I think this is absolutely accurate, but perhaps not for the same reasons as might be expected. One might expect that these feelings of longing for the empathy and understanding that seem to be lacking do exist, but that the person is just blind to the fact that there are others around who can understand. But instead, I think these feelings are often genuine. I believe that all men are created equal, but at the same time everyone is on their own unique path. And every once and awhile someone has to walk up a path that is at a much steeper incline than any of the other paths in sight. So feeling a lack of empathy may be accurate, because quite simply, it may be the case that no one else around has ever really had to walk that same path.

The trouble with this is that people can be cocky bastards. (I know this well, because I know that I can be a cocky bastard myself.) People make assumptions all the time, often because they can't directly perceive whatever problems another person may be going through, or they may simply judge them to not be "real" problems. And when dealing with depression or suicide, some of the worst things you can do are to ignore the person, avoid the person, or just decide that whatever they're feeling is unimportant (the chorus to "Razorblade" comes to mind). Just because someone's not bleeding doesn't mean that they're not feeling pain. And it is quite possible that they're undergoing more pain than you could possibly imagine. But when you can't see that on the surface level, you sometimes view it as insignificant, and then the problem gets ignored.

Buddhists teach that life is suffering, and I'm you've all heard the phrase "ignorance is bliss." It is my hypothesis that a large majority of people are simply ignorantly happy. That is to say that a lot of people are essentially privileged and haven't had to confront any sort of real emotional pain. Some people endure and become stronger. Paul the apostle said that he took "pleasure in infirmities, reproaches, necessities, persecutions, and distresses" because "for when [he] was weak, then [he] was strong." Essentially what that's saying is that "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." The problem with this is that for some people, it (emotional pain or hardship) does kill them--hence the huge suicide rate. Some people just don't feel strong enough and give up. Psychology and psychiatry are a good attempt to alleviate this problem, but as stated repeatedly, this problem will continue to persist so long as we have a model that supports it (which very well may be forever). Psychology can help, but it's not the final answer in my opinion. There is, however, a solution, a cure. In fact, it's been stated again and again by many different people throughout history. But part of the reason it keeps getting parroted so is because, on the whole, no one ever really listens. The version of this "solution" that I will cite here is the command that Jesus gave to love one another unconditionally and to forgive all wrongdoings done to you. Everyone is a human being, and everyone is fundamentally the same. I do believe in God, and if you don't I hope that you can still draw some sort of meaningful parallel from what I'm saying nonetheless. One of the first lessons I was taught in Sunday School is that we are all children of the same, one God, and that we reflected and expressed His qualities in our own unique ways. God could be likened unto the sun, and each one of us a sunbeam--a ray of light. We all express the same source, and together we comprise all of the light in the world, but at the same time we all each have our own differences and unique assortment of qualities. This is a simple concept for a child to accept, and an easy concept for an adult to forget.

How many people made you angry today? Did someone cut you off in traffic, or did another person insult you, or did someone else do something you perceived as hostile, awful, bad? What have they been going through in their lives? Chances are you don't know. And even if you do know, you don't really know. What if the person who cut you off in traffic just walked in on a cheating spouse the previous night? Or what if the person who insulted you was inadvertently reminded of repressed and painful memories of an abusive parent? My point is that you don't know what other people are experiencing, even (and especially) when you think you do. You only get to view things from your own point of view, and it's not doing anyone else any good to make assumptions about their experiences even if they do offend you somehow. You don't know what they're thinking, and you don't get to know what they're thinking. And you don't get to control anyone else (even though we all try to), and it is completely unfair to expect them to act in whatever specific way you prescribe just because it's convenient for you. Someone might insult you and come off as a total dick, but that doesn't mean that they're not feeling pain or that their life is somehow less significant than your's. The best advice I can offer is to mind your own business, don't ever make assumptions about a person's character, and for Christ's sake don't sweat the small stuff--be eager to forgive.

And that is just a general piece of advice for how to treat anyone. Even if a person looks happy on the outside to you, you still should be able to acknowledge that you have absolutely no idea what they're thinking or feeling. You simply don't know, and you're not going to. Sometimes we can have a pretty good idea, especially if it's a person you know and you think you've gone through similar experiences. Communicating and sharing experiences (and how we got through them) is vital for "mental health," because it offers the understanding and empathy that people yearn for when they're hurting. But you're not always going to be able to relate, because quite simply, you haven't walked in anyone else's shoes but your own and sometimes the difference in shoe sizes is vast. And lastly, if someone ever comes to you for help, for Christ's sake do not ignore them. They came to YOU, and chances are they did so for a reason. They may not even fully understand that reason, or be able to articulate it clearly, but it still exists. If someone comes to you for help, the WORST thing by far you can do is deny them whatever help they're looking for. Just because YOU haven't experienced whatever pain they're claiming to feel doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In all likelihood, whatever they're claiming is likely far beyond what you have ever experienced, but it's hard to recognize what you haven't experienced first hand.

So rather than make assumptions, or vilify the person's character, just help them. Again, if someone's come to you looking for help, they don't want to be ignored or deferred. They don't care if you're not "qualified"; there is no such thing as "qualified." Is it that radical of a concept to help a person in need? (Unfortunately, yes it is; see previous post on Good Samaritans.) Even if someone has insulted or offended you (and perhaps especially when someone has done so), it is an important life lesson to learn to just let go of the drive for vengeance. Just let go and turn the other cheek, and actually consider the thought of helping one another rather than spiraling further into meaningless, perpetual arguments and fights. Learn to not be offended, and instead to just love. A pronounced example of two sides who can only think about their own well being and not for a second consider the other position is the conflict in the Middle East. How many millenia has that been going on for? It is a never-ending "he started it" sort of battle. Just let go. Forgive and forget. That is the answer. And that is of course, the answer that no one will listen to. But if we want reform, we need to learn to truly let go of any elitist, exclusionary mindset and just care about other people.

So I'm pretty much an old man now, and I've been thinking lately about what this means. Legally I've been considered an adult for over five years now. I'm allowed to indulge in the cancer sticks and the giggle juice at any point without reprimand, although as most of you know, I don't and won't for both religious and personal reasons. Still, I am not allowed to rent a car for another two years, and it's another twelve years before I'd be allowed to host a wicked party where I can get so totally inaugurated out of my mind, man. But by most standards, I think it's acceptable to call myself an adult. I mean, a child certainly would. But I have noticed that other adults might not do so.

I still seem to be in the stage that most adults, particularly those older than me, still dub me a "young adult" rather than the full status of real adult. And certainly they are entitled to whatever opinions and perceptions they like, since opinions are generally harmless, but when you are treated differently because of these opinions, well that's just a bit annoying. I'm not sure at what point in time you drop the title of young adult and enter into the glory of full adulthood. Perhaps it happens after buying a house, or getting married, or having your first child, or after successfully completing any of the other standard-issue societal checklist goals. Or maybe it just happens mysteriously in your late twenties or early thirties, behind your back. And on the other hand, it's quite possible that some people will never upgrade your standing in their minds, and thus treat you with a slight tinge of condescension as long as they still hold breath. (In fact, I'm kind of expecting as much from a good number of people.)

But nevertheless, I have been thinking about some of the life lessons I've learned in my many years as an old person. Some of these life lessons are still works in progress for me, some I've only ever started to think about recently, while others I think I've known for a long time. Some of these are lessons that certainly even some same aged adults never really get quite right. Here is what growing up means to me.

1. Learn to be independent

This one is probably the most surface level lesson to be learned on the path to true adulthood and maturity; you have to be able to do things on your own. As humans, it's only natural to want to lean on others for help. But you'll never really be riding a bike so long as you keep the training wheels on. Unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that some people never really achieve a true sense of independence and stay pampered and waited on for their whole lives. But those same people usually aren't seen as pillars of maturity, either, which is why I would count this among the attributes of an adult.

2. Learn to be humble

This one's hard. Really hard. It's hard to gauge humility, because there are certainly some people who falsely view themselves as being humble, and the self-assertion that one is humble while ignoring criticisms inadvertently proves a lack of humility. It is very hard for people to admit that they're wrong about things. If you can expose a person's error, and if you look close, you can often see the true depth of their cowardice. But don't start thinking in dichotomies: this includes YOU as well.

I think that the first step to humility is realizing just how insignificant you really are. That might sound a bit harsh, but it's true. You're not the first person to have ever experienced a breakup, or to be pregnant, or to be married, and so on. And you're certainly not the most important. But then, what is importance? I'm pretty convinced that it's usually just a cultural construct, in which we pick persons to present with purported popularity perpetuated by the paparazzi, but most of it is meaningless.

Ironically, it's usually the more humble people, those who do not view themselves as being hugely significant, who are written in the history books to have had the most significance. Gandhi believed everything he did was insignificant, Socrates thought that he knew nothing, and I don't think Jesus would have gone around telling everyone how much better he was than them. Humility can be tough, but I think it's one of the most important lessons to learn.

3. Learn to be patient

I won't have to elaborate much on this one; patience is key. This is definitely one of the qualities that I would count as a "work in progress" for myself. But one thing I've always noticed is how children want things "now, now, now!" Part of growing up is about learning to take your time, to do things right, and to be willing to wait. Certainly there are times when a bout of impatience is warranted (like when a friend has a gash in her leg deep enough to see the bone and apathetic hospital workers take over an hour to do anything about it. Ahem, uw hospital). But there's a reason they say patience is a virtue.

4. Learn to be stable

Some people are push-overs who like to go with the flow and buy into whatever the current trend is with anything. Part of growing up, for me, is learning to have solid beliefs and to be able to stand up for yourself. In the original A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, he creates two characters who personify the causes of suffering in the world--two small, almost skeletal children huddled under the robe of the spirit of Christmas present. They are called "ignorance," and "want," and the spirit warns that ignorance is the most harmful. This is a lesson that is just as true today as it ever was. We can't be expected to have precise and firm opinions on absolutely everything ever, but it is important to know what you believe in and be able to defend that position.

5. Learn to be fluid

While I just ranted about how important it is to be firm in some things, I think it's equally important to not let yourself degenerate into a crotchety old person who won't listen to reason. Again with the humility thing, we're all human, and we all make mistakes. It's important to be able to admit when you make mistakes, learn from them, and adjust your position accordingly. Otherwise you just end up like our current president, and no one wants that.

6. Learn to let go

I'm sure there are a few of you who know some of the details on this, but for the rest of you, I'll be sufficiently ambiguous and just say that in my experience, the hardest lesson has always been to just let go of things. One of the best pieces of advice I've ever received from a certain crotchety old man was this: "God has closed that door in your life, but He's already opened another one for you. Don't miss it by trying to walk backwards through the old one!"

One theme I've seen as a somewhat common human experience is the desire to control other people. We want them to act in certain ways, to become certain people, and generally to follow a certain flow. But you can't control anyone but yourself. Sometimes this means you're met with disappointment. Some people offer the advice that you should never have expectations, and that way you'll never be let down. But this was never enough for me. I'm not a fan of lowering one's standards just because it's easier.

Sometimes you just need to let go of plans, people, etc. People may not always act the way you want them to, but part of growing up is learning to accept that they may be on a different path that you never envisioned or hoped for, but still recognize that they're making progress even if you don't ever get to see the results. Sometimes you just have to let go.

7. Regain a sense of hope and trust

At some point in time, I think people go through a period of hopelessness where the sky is always grey and nothing beautiful in the world really matters any more. Part of being an adult, I believe, is being able to find hope even in the darker times. In fact, these are the times when it's probably the most important to do so.

I've thought about some of the older people I admire the most (people I know), and in the memories I have of them, they were always happy, always smiling. Now obviously these people have been through hard times of their own that I never had to see, and indeed some of which may very well have been much more difficult than anything I've ever experienced.

I don't know what they've been through. But I do know how genuinely happy they could be, and how that was just inspiring. That's the kind of person I'd like to grow into, someone who's just so full of that childlike joy that it inspires others. I'm definitely not there yet, but it's something I see on the path to truly growing up.

Okay, this is urgent enough to me to warrant another quick blog post. A little while ago, I saw a short YouTube video about John McCain, highlighting several repeated instances where he would firmly make one stance, and then later firmly make the opposing stance, and keep flip flopping back and forth. Exhibit A:

That made me lose a lot of respect for the man. He doesn't seem to have any opinion on anything, and it seems he really just wants the power of the president's office for the sake of having said power, or perhaps for financial gain. This is of course nothing new in American politics, but it's not exactly something that makes me happy, either. But despite his empty rhetoric and conflicting messages, I still had some solace from the quote he made in March of last year to The Telegraph in regard to Guantánamo Bay:

I would immediately close Guantánamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases.

McCain has been a prisoner of war himself, so I thought he had the common sense and base level of morality to be able to truly understand and value the importance of treating prisoners in a fair, civil, and consistent way. There have been some proud moments in American history, like when we gave fair trials to some of the British at the start of the Revolutionary War, or when we did so in the Nuremberg Trials. We didn't just kill these people or treat them as subhuman, we put them through exactly the same court procedure that anyone else would go through when accused of a crime. And I was grateful for McCain making that quote when most of his Republican contenders at the time like Giuliani and Romney were decrying Islamic terrorists as unforgivable animals who should be exterminated.

But now, I no longer have this ounce of solace left. Recently, the Supreme Court decided that the detainees we have been keeping for six years at Guantánamo Bay actually have the right to Habeas Corpus. And for those of you still rusty on your legal terms, this isn't some magical, fluffy, candy-filled ticket to paradise. It's just the right to know what you have been accused of, and the right to defend yourself against these accusations in court (with the aid of a lawyer). The United States is supposed to stand as a shining beacon of justice to the world, especially with our permanent seat in the United Nations and all. So how we got to this point, where we have actually been holding people in (rather unpleasant) custody without necessarily even having proof that they did anything wrong, and without providing them any opportunity to argue their own innocence, I will never understand. The worst part is that the people doing this continually wave the flag and say that it's being done in the name of "freedom." Why this should even be a question for the Supreme Court in the first place is baffling. And the fact that it was a five-to-four vote is even more disturbing.

But John McCain said he would shut down Guantánamo immediately, right? Yes, that is true. That's what I just quoted above. But that was before this recent Supreme Court ruling. Take a look at what he's saying now:

The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.

No respect for that man at all. None.

I'll get straight to the point: I loathe mainstream society and mainstream Christianity in particular. The reason I single out the latter is probably because I do identify as Christian, so it's somewhat close to heart. In my graduate-level religious studies course last semester, one theme we observed was that the early Christians who were still just founding the early churches seemed to have a lot more trouble with those they perceived as heretics than heathens. Heathens were one thing, because although they lived lifestyles which were generally seen as uncouth by the church, this was attributed to their supposed ignorance, having never been introduced to the Bible. And this is something that could be easily remedied--all the church had to do was to have the pagans be baptized, recite a few prayers, and voila, they would conform. The heathens were viewed essentially as empty spiritual vessels, objects to be controlled, in a somewhat dehumanizing way, since they automatically discounted their previous opinions and beliefs as ignorant, undeveloped, and invalid.

But the heretics were a different story altogether. They had been exposed to the Christian teachings with plenty of time to digest them, but they still had the gall to actually disagree with some of the finer points of church doctrine (or at least the doctrine dictated by the majority). And the church generally viewed that sort of independent thought as a dangerous corruption of their ideas, so they would work quite diligently to ostracize those in disagreement rather than actually consider their arguments rationally in any sort of open or productive way. Now, clearly I'm phrasing this to imply that the church's demonization of dissenters is a bad thing (which I do believe), but in truth I can also understand and even sympathize with some of their actions.

I have never been a part of any mainstream branch of Christianity, and I sometimes view these branches as "dangerous corruptions" of what the Christly teachings had probably intended. Complaining and condemning each other, however, is of course never very productive, but I can understand why "heretical" opinions can seem so offensive. The real problem I have with any branch of Christianity (including my own) has little to do with actual dogma and more to do with the people involved. There is an inherent problem with large assemblies of people, in that things like identity, originality, and uniqueness tend to be swallowed up in the group through covert assimilation. People are expected to fit within certain molds, and often times those imposing these expectations are often unaware that they are doing so. (I just ended a sentence with a preposition. Take that, English.)

For instance, I remember one time I went to a party with Jay in Plymouth which had mostly a bunch of evangelists in attendance. I remember that there was some girl with long hair, wearing a flowered skirt, and kind of giving off a "hippy" vibe who randomly approached me to ask if I had been "saved." This kind of caught me off guard, so I awkwardly mumbled some kind of "yes" response, even though I was simultaneously thinking, "yes, but not at all the kind of 'saved' you're thinking about." But she wasn't interested in learning about my views on the real meaning of salvation, nor on my interpretation of what it really means to follow the Christly path. She just wanted me to say "yes" so she could move onto the next person down the line. I knew immediately that had I tried to get into any sort of theological discussion with her, I would have been essentially decried as a heretic, a sinner, or someone generally "lost" in a likely slanderous way. So I just went with a mumbled "yes" and let her be on her way. I had no desire for confrontation that particular night.

But this sense of desire for conformity from others is by no means exclusive to evangelists, or even to mainstream Christians in general. Not too long ago, some random "musician" from California (if you can call that hollow drawl of her's "music") added me as a friend on Facebook after seeing that I identified as a Christian Scientist. She actually added a number of people who identified this way, I think mostly to try and promote her music, as it seemed every other word she spoke was a link to her website in an annoying, spammer sort of way. But she chatted with me a bit, asking if I bought CDs or used iTunes, and got on a brief complaining rant about the inexcusable "evils" of piracy (at which point I just stayed silent). She even watched one of the short films I posted on YouTube, and left positive feedback. But then about a week later when I was having a pretty rough day, I changed my "religious views" from "Christian Science" to "Christian Science, bordering on dystheism." This is really a very tongue-in-cheek expression, not meant to be taken seriously for the obvious reason that CS and dystheism are completely and utterly contradictory. It was a comment somewhat akin to when my friend Jackie had her religious views set to "Catholicism, Nihilism." I still get a chuckle from that.

But as a result of this change mentioning dystheism, said musician quietly removed me as a friend. (I know this, because awhile back I wrote a quick computer script to let me know whenever someone unfriends me on Facebook and who they are.) So even though this was really just a sarcastic comment, and even though anyone's understanding of and closeness to God is a very complex and constantly changing/evolving sort of thing, this simply didn't matter. How I have lived my life also made no difference. What mattered to her was only what I said, the surface-level image of how I present myself--not what I do or how I live. The smallest slip up would mean she no longer wants to associate with me (clearly). She only wants people who will present an unwavering image that she desires to see without ever questioning it or thinking deeper. And I have no respect for that kind of ignorant and controlling sort of attitude. It doesn't seem to show up quite as much in smaller denominations, but that is perhaps only and unfortunately due to scale. The pressure to fit in and conform really does seem to flourish in larger religions, and I think it's one of the main deterrents that leave people inclined to be atheists. But I shouldn't limit it to just the realm of religion, because really we live in a society of conformity that rewards people who do less.

When I contrasted the differing attitudes over heretics and heathens earlier, an immediate parallel to relationships came to mind. All too often I've seen people seeking out romantic partners who are nothing more than "empty vessels." For example, not too long my friend Ashley was telling me about this "amazing guy" she had met at the bar a few days earlier, and was sitting on pins and needles hoping he would call. Somewhat intrigued, and somewhat just humoring her, I said, "tell me about him." In a very star-struck sort of way, she said things like, "he was so cute," "he was so funny," and "he was so sweet," followed by "and then we made out for a couple hours." So I replied saying, "let me get this straight... cute, funny, sweet... in other words, you know next to nothing about him." "Shut up, meanie," she said. I asked why she thought he was sweet. She explained that at the end of the evening, he had sent her a text message to make sure she made it home okay. And the way she said it seemed to imply that this was an inexplicably selfless act of kindness, forever bestowing him with the title of nicest guy ever.

As I pointed out to her, sending a text message asking if she made it home okay may be a nice and proper thing to do, but on the grand scheme of niceties, it's not actually very much at all. It's really just a common courtesy that some people do instinctively and takes almost no effort whatsoever. So I thought she was inflating him to be a lot more than he actually was in her mind. Still, I can sympathize with her doing that, since I can grudgingly admit that I've done similar things myself, and I've seen other friends do it as well. I'm still not fully sure why, but people who do nothing and have no personality can seem very attractive. And this is true for both sexes; you often hear the complaint that girls only go for assholes, while guys are off chasing ditzy valley girls. I think this is because it's very easy to literally "assign" whatever identity we want to people with no personalities, because they don't have their own pesky opinions and sense of identity to get in the way. So we inflate them in our minds to be whatever we want them to be. And FYI, that doesn't tend to work out so well in the long run. Pedestals are made to be broken.

But as a result of this, it's the people who don't have opinions, who cave into peer pressure, and who conform, who reap the most societal benefits. The people who are unique, instead, are decried as "weird," "creepy," or any other socially castrating insult. In this society, people are expected to stand out as little as possible, and this bothers me. (It especially bothers me when people defend their conformity with scripture, but I'm not going to get into that now at the risk of sounding hypocritical.) Many of the world's greatest artists, writers, musicians, and thinkers are often looked back on as "eccentrics" and "crazies." The very people who have seemingly contributed the most to the world are the very people who are condemned.

Awhile back, I went to a tuxedo fitting with my friend James for his brother's wedding in July. (I'll be the best man!) We had a pretty interesting conversation that day, and he brought up a lot of things I found intriguing. For one, he mentioned a general sense of dissatisfaction with the dating scene, and his desire to stay single for as long as possible. I asked him why, and he explained that with the vast majority of women he encountered, their highest aspiration in life was to own a big house with a lot of stuff in it. Not to write a great novel, or to create great works of art, or to take their minds philosophically where no one yet has ventured--just to own a lot of material possessions. (And to look skinnier than their bridesmaids on their wedding day.) Oh, and also to breed to continue the cycle. It reminded me a lot of a video clip I saw awhile back, which I'll share now.

Now, after watching that, it's easy to see some of the problems I've been talking about. The girl's highest aspirations are to spew out offspring and to be on "Girls Gone Wild." But it's more important, I think to be able to ask yourself in an honest, introspective way, how similar you are to that girl. Do you really have a desire to do something significant, to do your part to change the world for the better? Or would you rather just float by, reactive instead of proactive, and maybe pump out a kid here and there? Well, if you've actually read this far, you've probably got a leg up on the competition. But think carefully. And that's enough for today.

I've been home to Sheboygan on a few recent weekends, and after digging through my closet a bit I came across a lot of old memories. I'm not really sure why, but I decided I'd put them here. They're very good memories that make me happy, but at the same time it's bittersweet, because they also make me sad. And these are really just a small glimpse. I don't know. People change, and life can be hard. But it's good to remember and cherish the fun and happy parts, I think.

Click Here

Woke up this morning and quickly realized that for some strange reason, my house does not have hot water at the moment. Cold shower was cooooooooooold. I'm sure this will be resolved quickly, as issues like this typically are, but I would have much preferred the resolution to come sometime prior to me taking a shower. Sigh.

Next, traffic was atrocious this afternoon on the way to lunch. I drove Paul and myself over to Qdoba/Subway (Paul already had Qdoba once this week), and there were just a lot of cars, which does not facilitate fast travel, thereby increasing Gordon's frustration level. At the restaurant, I got my usual, chicken nachos, but much to my dismay there was a note at the counter saying that they had some sort of shortage of adequate tomatoes, and as such, anything with tomatoes in it (such as my favorite Pico de Gallo salsa) were temporarily not available. Sad panda. I went with the medium salsa instead, which I would not recommend (but it was the next closest thing).

And then it took forever to get out of the parking lot on the way back, as an unending line of cars seemed to appear out of nowhere to block my passage. Then at the stoplight, not one, not two, but three cars in succession ran a red light and almost caused me to get into another car accident. I will concede that the first one was probably okay to go; they were all turning left and it was already out in the intersection some. But the other two had no excuse whatsoever to continue driving. The light was clearly red. And to top that off, the lady coming in the opposite direction from me (who had a green) apparently had a hard time seeing my car through those other red-light-running cars, as she too came very close to driving right into it.

Lastly, I'm still working on getting the funds restored to one of my bank accounts, because one of my debit cards was stolen. Well, not the card itself, but the numbers. There were two charges that put me in the negative (I didn't have many monies in this particular account), one to a website that's written in Arabic, and another to some German company that is apparently notorious for stealing credit card numbers. Sigh × 2. So tonight Chris and I are going back to Sheboygan to see friends and play games. And I'll naturally get to see my family as well. So hopefully things will improve this weekend. Today is not my day.

I'm getting sick of coming across so many PHP sucks articles being parroted all over the internets, so I wanted to dispel some of the myths and rumors about it here. PHP does not suck. Not more or less than any other language, anyway. The most common argument for why PHP "sucks" is that it's "ugly." Forgetting the fact that this is an extremely subjective judgment call to the point of being almost meaningless, PHP is as ugly or as beautiful as you choose to make it. The thing about PHP is that it's multi-paradigm, so it allows you to develop using pretty much any approach you'd like to. You can choose to write procedural code. You can choose to write object-oriented code. You can even choose to write functional code (while it's true that functions are not first-class objects in PHP, you can still emulate the functional approach by passing in the names of functions as strings and then using call_user_func). My point is that you can choose to write your code in any number of different ways in PHP to get the job done. And here's where the problems start.

Because PHP gives you, the programmer, so much leeway with what you can do and how you can do it, you, the programmer, naturally decide to do things in the worst possible way. You write really sloppy, messy, god-awful spaghetti code. And then you turn around and blame the language for allowing you to do that in the first place. It is not the fault of PHP that you're a terrible programmer. Get over yourself. PHP is one of the more flexible languages that I've seen, far more so than stodgy old Java or "hooray for segfaults!" C. In fact, some of the things you can do with PHP are just plain cool and really innovative. For instance, most of the languages you're familiar with use "unnamed" or "numbered" arguments in function declarations, meaning that the numeric order in which you pass in arguments makes a difference (first parameter, second parameter, etc.). A little while back I saw a really neat implementation of calling functions with named arguments, that I've actually extended a bit on my own using ReflectionClass->getConstructor() so that it also works on object constructors. So while PHP doesn't natively support the named-arguments approach like Python does, it's powerful enough so that you can add support for it with very little overhead. That's just plain cool in my mind.

And one other "argument" I see come up more often than not is the one in which angsty, ranting blogger number twelve says "I don't know anyone who would ever say PHP is their 'language of choice.'" Well it's a good thing you live in such a massively broad world and are clearly the authority on every web application developer ever. I do know people whose "language of choice" is, in fact, PHP. I'll even offer one shining example where I have concrete evidence that I'm not just making people up: ME. My language of choice is PHP. I work as a full-time, salaried web developer, I earned my PHP certification courtesy of Zend, and I absolutely the love the language. Don't get me wrong; I know all about the bad side of PHP--the worst part of my job is having to dig through and clean up some of the messy code done by poor developers from years past. It can really be a nightmare. But this is not by any means a flaw with PHP; it's simply a flaw with the people who used it. Once I get done trudging through the filth that some people call "code" for all the wrong reasons and transform it into something shiny and nice, it really can be quite elegant. So while I have seen the worst, I also have seen plenty of PHP's real potential, so I know first hand that it really is a fantastic language if you choose to make it so. (By the way, the language of choice for at least half the people at my office is also PHP. Just sayin' is all.)

Lastly, there are a few other things worth mentioning. PHP is fast. Really fast. One thing we do at work all the time is profile scripts to see how fast they can run in the millisecond / nanosecond / whateversecond. PHP is flexible. Code with whatever paradigm you feel like. PHP is friendly. The syntax is very straight-forward, there's automatic type casting, and plenty of other bells and whistles that go on behind the scenes to make things work the first time. PHP is quite extensive. Some people complain about the fact that PHP has so many library functions, but I'm grateful for them--you can really do a lot right out of the box. PHP is free and widely available. No elaboration necessary on that one. And PHP is growing and innovating. I was recently looking at the meeting notes for some of the upcoming features in PHP6, and I'm actually really looking forward to some of the stuff we'll be able to do. For instance, they're actually including a named break statement (somewhat akin to a "goto" statement) to be able to handle complex nesting structures, and they're making the "middle" value of the ternary operator optional. So the bottom line for me is this: stop bitching about PHP. PHP does what it is supposed to do, and it is capable of quite a lot. If you are experiencing problems with PHP, I'd bet that if you switched over to some other language, you'd still inevitably run into different flavors of the same problems. And I would win that bet, too--not just because I'm made out of win, but because I'd be right.

I just got back from a two-day Seinfeld marathon at Keeshia's place, and the combination of having wanted to blog about something for awhile and just having an experience probably worth at least a blog post brings me here. I mean, the experience isn't all that fantasmical, but neither is my blog usually. So anyway... Chris and I were walking back to my place, when a strange old man intercepted us on the sidewalk. I say "old," but this is of course factoring in the fact that I already consider myself an old man. So he was probably in his mid- to late-forties. Other important physical characteristics to note: slightly hunched over, smelled awful, and fly unzipped. As he approached us, he walked right in our path and quickly asked if either of us had a cell phone he could use. I could see Chris looked as though he would have rather said no and kept walking, but I decided in my head that I'd let him use my phone.

He explained, rather confusingly, that he needed to call an 800 number to check the balance on one of his calling cards. The way he talked about it made it seem as though this was a critically important thing for him to do. I can see clearly now that this is a rather strange request, but one thing I've noticed is that when strangers come up to you with strange requests, you don't always recognize them as such in the heat of the moment. In fact, I know I've been conned out of menial amounts of money before in a handful of similar situations, although in retrospect I write that off knowing that they probably needed that dollar a lot more than I did ($5 another time). Is that just me rationalizing things? Meh, probably.

So as I reached for the phone in my pocket, I gave Chris a somewhat nervous look, saying, "watch him carefully" with my eyes. Chris understood completely. It's strange how effective non-verbal communication can be. Also, at this point my mind was already processing several possible "bad case scenario" outcomes and how I might respond. For a split second, my inner monologue went something like this: "What if he grabs the phone and runs for it? Easy; chase him. He's fat--not a problem. What if he pulls a knife? Again, short and stocky--I could overpower him. Gun? Hmm, I could try to hit the gun to the side quickly away from me and Chris...wait, no. Probably not worth it. It's just a phone." It's interesting how quickly the mind can process things like this. So anyways, I got my phone out and opened it. The way that he started to move his hands made it look as though he wanted to grab it and start dialing himself, although I kept a firm grip on the phone. He must've realized this pretty quickly, because he retracted his hands and just told me the number to dial aloud. He also told me I'd have to press 1 for English right away. It was indeed an 800 number, I did indeed have to press 1, and I heard the computerized voice verify that it was indeed the Walgreen's calling card service. He was being honest; off to a good start.

The voice then asked for a pin number or somesuch, at which point I cautiously handed the phone to the man to dial it himself. He did, checked the number of minutes he had left (to which he said "good"), then quickly closed the phone and handed it back to me. Without skipping a beat, he then explained to me (in elaborate detail) an experience he had once. Apparently his calling card balance was $13.^something when he made an exceptionally brief call from a pay phone, later learning that his balance had been reduced to $10.^something. And since then, he always checks his balance after making a call with the card to ensure that they aren't slapping on surcharges. He mentioned that earlier that evening he had made a call from a pay phone x blocks away but forgot to check the balance immediately afterward like he normally does. And he seemed to be genuinely a little flustered over this; as I said, it seemed really important to him to do this.

As he told this story, which took probably a good three minutes, I was already thinking, "okay, okay, shut up; I really don't care and would rather be on my way. Also, you should probably take a shower and zip your fly." But I let him tell the story; he was already talking pretty quickly so I figured it wouldn't be too long. And I can understand feeling as though you'd need to justify the borrowed cell phone usage with an explanation, even though that really didn't make much sense either. It really just revealed that he had a paranoia over small surcharges, more than anything. So he walked on his way, grateful that his balance was still where he thought it would be, and Chris and I walked away slightly confused and laughed about it.

I try to be the Good Samaritan in situations such as these, even though some might view that as being unwise. It got me thinking about the actual story of the Good Samaritan in the Bible, so I want to rant about Biblical stuff a bit. I think a lot of people look at that story and say to themselves, "well, I would naturally help the poor man; I would never be like the priest or the Levite." And to that, I would call most of those people hypocrites and liars. One thing I think about a lot is a comparison between Biblical times and now, and the one resounding theme that I've noticed is that not much has changed. Sure, we have technological advancements that allow for greater military strength, more effective communication, better transportation, and a better standard of living for many (not for all by a long shot!), but as far as human behavior is concerned, practically nothing has changed. Any intelligent history major would be able to tell you in a heartbeat that history repeats itself all the time.

A lot of people are out there just for themselves. They think life is a game, and tend to take the same kind of approach to life that you see with five-year olds: the "mine, mine, mine" approach. No one is under any obligation to ever stop and help the poor man on the side of the road; they don't owe him anything. But for me, that's not really the point at all. It's not about what one person owes another. When one person is suffering, one of the worst things you can talk about is "debt." Of course the priest and the Levite were under no obligation to stop for him. Neither was the Good Samaritan--but he stopped anyway. And that's precisely why he is now known as the "Good Samaritan" rather than the "Kind-of-a-dick-sometimes Samaritan." To me, one of the real meanings of life is not to just play a game and try to win. I think a much more rewarding life can be obtained by consciously choosing not to "play the game," and instead try to focus on helping others.

Now, relating back to my situation. What long term impact will my letting this strange man borrow my cell phone for a minute have? Probably none. But for me, that's not the point either. I don't need to save a dying man on the roadside. I mean, I would like to think I'd try to if I came across that precise situation, but the likelihood of that happening in downtown Madison--right in front of me--is very small. Instead, I think about how I would want to be treated if I desperately needed to borrow someone's cell phone. I'd hope they'd let me use it! Now, admittedly, his reasons for borrowing my phone seemed pretty goofy, and I simply cannot envision myself ever asking to borrow someone else's phone for such a frivolous purpose. But like I said, it seemed to be strangely important to him, even though I don't really know why. And if I had some reason that was very important to me for wanting to borrow a phone, I would hope that someone would let me borrow it. So by letting him do so, I'm creating a kind of universal maxim in my head, for those of you familiar with Kant's ideas on ethics.

So what's the point of all this? Who knows. Some people like to believe that everything happens for a reason. Quite frankly, for me, the jury's still out on that one. I don't know why this strange, smelly man needed to borrow my cell phone to call a toll free number and check his calling card balance. I'm not sure that the universe or God had any good reason for bringing us together on this occasion. But then, there are many things in this universe that I simply don't understand the purpose of. Like the Dodo bird, for instance. What was the purpose of its brief existence? Maybe some things don't have a reason, contradicting the aforementioned theory. Or maybe the reason is yet to be revealed. Or maybe this had a huge impact on the strange man, even though it seemed to have no apparent reason for me. I don't know. But either way, I think it makes for at least semi-decent blog material. Leave a comment if you've got your own ideas on the matter.

So real quick, because I don't really have time to post: I am overwhelmed with schoolwork right now. Tonight will probably be an all-nighter, as I have a 15-page paper on the Hidden Christians of Japan (the 隠れきりしたん) due tomorrow evening of which I have only written seven pages so far. Then on Friday are two big programming assignments, followed by a final on Sunday and a flurry of other stuff that I'm losing track of. Also, on a completely different note, there seems to be a large group of people who have never met me but nonetheless don't seem particularly fond of me ever since circa Valentine's Day. I doubt that any of them will ever read this, but just in case they do, it's fine if you want to hate me for no good reason--that's your prerogative--but please know that I could really stand to do without all those damn evil glares, guys; thanks. I'm sure you have some justification to reconcile treating someone as a pariah with the assertion that you're "following Christ," but I don't really care what that might be since it's probably dishonest anyway. All I have to say is that respect for your fellow man is a good thing. You don't have to like me, but please show some respect in every day passing. You're not in middle school.

In other news, I had another rough Tuesday last week and went to see a counselor. And when you just walk in randomly like that, you're pretty much guaranteed to speak with someone new. So I essentially told the guy my whole life story, which is something I'm getting increasingly articulate at doing seeing as I've told it so many damn times now, and it was kind of cute to see the look that came over his face as he realized that I've pretty much already exhausted all of the possible suggestions counselors can offer, and then some. He did mention that I perfectly fit the model of clinical depression, though. Isn't that great? He also recommended some books that sounded intriguing, so I've added them to my wishlist. But books are not really something I want to think about right now, not with the enormous, overwhelming, overbearing amounts of school-related stress at the moment. And as far as graduating on time, all I can really say is...cross your fingers! I'm giving it my all at this point, so I just pray that's enough.

Also, I need to find a place to live. I have one place in mind on the west side, but if I were to live there, I'd need a roommate, which I do not have in mind at the moment. And finally, I picked a fight with some people from my church online. So far they've had to censor at least four of my posts. And if you ever wanted to get on Gordon's bad side real quickly, know that all you need to do is try and censor what I have to say. I want to write elaborately about the discussion in an uncensored way here, but I don't have time at the moment. So that's enough of an update for now.