Always Tomorrow and Never Today

In the old story-song, "The Arkansas Traveler," a man on horseback riding through an Arkansas rainstorm comes upon an old man sitting on his cabin porch and playing the fiddle. Behind him, the rain is leaking through hundred of holes in the cabin roof. The traveler reins in his horse.

"See here, old man," he shouts importantly, "why don't you fix your roof?"

"Can't fix it now, stranger," hollers the old man, still sawing away on the fiddle. "Hit's a-raining too hard."

"Well then," says the traveler reasonably, "why don't you wait till it stops and then fix it?"

The fiddler ponders this a moment. "Don't leak then," he replies at last.[1]

____________________________________________________

It's surprising how many of us deal with our day-to-day (or once-in-a-while) issues in that exact way. It seems comical when one reads the account of such an approach, but I think that on some level we all can relate. Something frustrating or disastrous happens, and in the middle of the crisis we have a hard time being objective enough to find a good solution. After the situation passes, we find that we'd rather not think about the issue any more than we have to, and since it isn't pressing itself on our consciousness through present experience anymore, we let it fade from our minds until the same issue presents itself again in the future. [At which point, at least one of parties involved probably exclaims something to the effect of "You always" or "You never..."]

"I vaguely remember being in this situation before."

I have found that this is especially true in relationships. Once in a while (or more often, perhaps), a couple will have some sort of conflict, or argument, or fight. In the midst of conflict, everyone is focused on allaying their own fears, 'winning' sometimes, and damage control: making sure that it doesn't get worse and everyone gets back to a calm peaceable point in the relationship again.

After the situation is settled, and everyone feels all peaceful and happy and compassionate, what might best make sense would be to figure out why that situation sparks such tension in the first place, and how to avoid future reruns of situations that follow the same episodic formula or trigger the same fears. This would be 'fixing the roof.' The other option, of course, is to just blithely put the whole situation away from one's mind, and reflect "Thank God that's over!" Naturally, that 'solution' only lasts until it rains again.

Aside from just the instinctive aversive to thinking about painful topics, though, why would people not go back to find a solution to the underlying issue? One reason would be that people, on some level, feel that these things are just "bound to happen," there is no real lasting means of prevention, and so any effect dedicated to bettering the relationship in that aspect would be wasted energy. The gnostic twin of this form of reasoning is the underlying fear that one is not smart enough/skilled enough/relationally-adept enough to find or implement any of the existing solutions. Again, then, there is no motivation to go about looking for a way to avoid ongoing negative interactions.

On the other hand, we know that love "hopes all things," and if one has hope -- if one sees the payoff -- then one will be motivated to spend time, energy, and thought to go back and patch up the weaknesses inherent in a particular way of seeing things or doing things. When in a loving and hopeful mindset, it's easier to graciously work out better ways to interact in disagreeable situations. The wonderful thing, though, is this: From this point of view, things that go wrong are beautiful opportunities because they are key in helping us to see clearly exactly where the figurative holes in our roofs lie, so that we can become more and more awesome (Christ-like) in our thoughts, practices, and relationships with those around us.

The traveler replied, "That's all quite true,

But this, I think, is the thing to do;

Get busy on a day that is fair and bright,

Then patch the old roof till it's good and tight."

But the old man kept on a-playing at his reel,

And tapped the ground with his leathery heel.

"Get along," said he, "for you give me a pain;

My cabin never leaks when it doesn't rain."

[1] From the book, Nor Any Drop To Drink

The Lesson of Balaam's Donkey

Now the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road.

Then the Angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. And when the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again.

Then the Angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam’s anger was aroused, and he struck the donkey with his staff.



Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!”

So the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?”

And he said, “No.”

Then the LORD opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the Angel of the LORD standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face.

_________________________________________________

In this story, Balaam physically could not see the danger that he was in. In a more metaphorical sense, this applies to many situations because we all have blind spots in life, and we don't always know what danger we are facing or what trouble we are getting ourselves into. The story of Balaam is a lesson in humility; why should he have paid attention to the perspective of a sub-human creature who was incapable of telling him a good reason for what he was doing? There are several key elements in the set-up to this story, though, and these elements are also seen reflected in many more modern tales, but I'll get to that later.

1. Character #1 faces danger of some sort
2. Character #2 is a loyal or upright character who has proven untrustworthy
3. Character #1 looks down on Character #2, doesn't think them worth listening to
4. Character #2 tried to prevent bad stuff from happening
5. Character #1 for whatever reason does not hear or does not understand the reason that Character #2 has for getting in the way
6. Character #1 gets angry at Character #2 for getting between them and their goals
7. Character #1 hurts Character #2
8. Finally, Character #1 sees the danger prevented and appreciates Character #2

That's generally how it goes. Where did Character #1 go wrong? Well, other than the obvious mistake of getting himself into trouble somehow, there are the issues of trust, of respect, and of anger. After Balaam had hit the donkey several times, the donkey is able to speak back and he asks whether in the past he had ever gone against Balaam or been stubborn like that. The donkey asks if Balaam has any reason not to trust him, and Balaam has to admit that the donkey had always been a loyal servant and never untrustworthy in that way. Balaam was wrong, then, to judge rather than trust his loyal servant. In Balaam's mind, though, he was a man and the donkey was a donkey, which means that he was right by default. There wasn't the slightest possibility, in his mind, that he should actually heed the donkey.

Similar plotlines pop up here and there. In Lady and the Tramp, for instance, the Tramp knocks over the baby's basset (with the baby in it) while helping Lady to protect the baby from a vicious rat who was attempting to bite the baby. Naturally the noise brings in Aunt who-ever-it-was, and she berates both dogs, also calling the dog catcher to take the Tramp to the pound. The parents get home, and they actually listen to Lady's barking, she leads them to the curtain where the rat (then dead) was lying, and then of course the Tramp is appreciated. The Aunt distrusted all dogs from the very start, despite Lady's habitual past trustworthy conduct, and saw Lady as a lessor being (obviously) so that the possibility that she should actually heed the dog's barking (first warning her of the rat, and later trying to show the dead rat) wasn't in her mind at all. Again, there is a lack of humility that she could have a blind spot, dismissal of input from those she looks down on, retaliation toward those who were protectors, and final revealing of the truth.

In another well known story, It's A Wonderful Life, there is a scene near the beginning where the main character is a child working for a pharmacist. The pharmacist, Gower, accidentally grabs the wrong bottle and inadvertently sends young George to give a child poison. Young George notices this danger, refuses to deliver the drug, and attempts to explain...

GOWER

Why, that medicine should have been
there an hour ago. It'll be over in
five minutes, Mrs. Blaine.

He hangs up the phone and turns to George.

GOWER
Where's Mrs. Blaine's box of capsules?

He grabs George by the shirt and drags him into the back
room.

GEORGE
Capsules...

GOWER
(shaking him)
Did you hear what I said?

GEORGE
(frightened)
Yes, sir, I...

Gower starts hitting George about the head with his open
hands. George tries to protect himself as best he can.

GOWER
What kind of tricks are you playing,
anyway? Why didn't you deliver them
right away? Don't you know that boy's
very sick?

GEORGE
(in tears)
You're hurting my sore ear.

GOWER
You lazy loafer!

GEORGE
(sobbing)
Mr. Gower, you don't know what you're
doing. You put something wrong in
those capsules. I know you're unhappy.
You got that telegram, and you're
upset. You put something bad in those
capsules. It wasn't your fault, Mr.
Gower...

George pulls the little box out of his pocket. Gower savagely
rips it away from him, breathing heavily, staring at the boy
venomously.

GEORGE
Just look and see what you did. Look
at the bottle you took the powder
from. It's poison! I tell you, it's
poison! I know you feel bad... and...

George falters off, cupping his aching ear with a hand.

Of course, after Gower realizes that it was, in fact, poison, he was penitent and very grateful to poor George, who became deaf in one ear after the incident. Unlike the previous two stories, Character #2 wasn't an animal. The dynamic remains the same, though, because George was just a child; there wasn't the slightest possibility present to Gower's mind that the kid saw something that he didn't. Rather, the child seemed to get between the old man and his goals, and there was hell to pay. In this case also, George had been nothing but trustworthy and reliable; there was no reason for Gower to distrust him and turn on him just as there was no reason for Balaam to distrust and turn on his donkey. The motivation is understandable: what underling dares get between a man and his goal, especially without being able to articulate quickly and clearly why? That underling faces wrath for being "in the wrong" automatically, not heard, and getting in the way, even though getting in the way protects the other character from the destruction that lies in that way.

Therefore, the lesson of Balaam is simply this:

We all have blind spots. Therefore, if some loyal underling (even one below your statue, your rank, your education, your age, or sub-human) gets between you and a very urgent goal then follow these three steps: Respect their motivations even if you don't understand or you disagree; Listen to their perspective if you can to try to consider their angle on what the danger might be; Whatever you do, don't hit them in anger just because they stand between you and your goal. If anything, it is better to be too gracious than too quick to condemn.

The Epic Story

Pull up a chair
And sit on the floor
While I tell you a very familiar tale
You've never heard before


At the dead of night
In the middle of the day
Two dead boys
Went out to play


Back to back
They faced each other
Pulled out their swords
And shot each other



The deaf policeman
Heard the noise
He came and killed
Those two dead boys


And if you don't believe me,
You can ask the blind man
He saw the whole thing...
.
.
.

Just Being Pragmatic

The bare-bones basics of pragmatism include the judgment of all proposed “truths” in terms of utility or workability. Acceptance of a proposition is not sought primarily through experience or reason, but through observation of the results of believing such a thing. However, there is more that needs to be understood about pragmatism. For one thing, it can be simply the helpful habit of “always seeing an alternative,which can lead to experimentation about whether that alternative is more workable than the current method.”(King, Viney, & Woody, 2009) In this way, William James, known for his contributions to pragmatism, was much more focused on opening new doors than on closing other ones. The pragmatic way of life has become very pervasive in American psychology, and also in American culture in general. I think that this has been a mainly negative influence due to several weaknesses, or flaws, in pragmatism.

The first problem with pure pragmatism is everything that the system ignores. The long term consequences, which are harder to measure, are largely ignored. Beyond that, though, pragmatism looks at whichever works best, in the end, without reference to morality, truth-value, aestheticism, or even the concept of Occam's razor. Ignoring these issues, which is to a large extent the stuff that life is made up of, can prove a serious handicap to the extent to which pragmatic psychology can help people to achieve a satisfactory life. For example, Americans in general love “instant gratification,” and tend to be very goal-oriented. But are we happier, cooking our instant lunches in the microwave, than those who take the time to grow and cook their own food? Are we sacrificing the quality of our life for some hypothetical “end goal”? Ultimately, I think the means do matter, and the end matters as well. In any method, all of this matters: how well it works, how simple, how truthful, how enjoyable, and how moral it is. In fact, I think that pragmatism in its pure form misses the point of most of life: it is the middle of most things where we find pleasure, pain, growth, enjoyment, relationships, and so on. The “end” of anything occupies a very small spot, as far as how much time it takes up, how much we enjoy or are enriched by it, or what we learn.

In regard to religion, pragmatism judges beliefs and practices “by the work they accomplish in the world. If good work is accomplished, then a belief or practice is vindicated.”(King, Et Al., 2009) This view has no concept of eternity. If everything is judged by it's end result, then pragmatism can have no place to judge religion with it's eternity, since eternity has no end result. Each thing with an end has an end, is “in the world” as the above quote mentions, and those are the things the pragmatists are concerned with. But the things without an end cannot be the things that pragmatism could possible relate to. The pragmatist cannot be concerned with eternity itself, for it has no end result, no question of "does this work?” for it is an ongoing process forever. Everything with an end has essence, but not everything with essence has an end. Just as pragmatism fails to highlight what is important in the essence of life, related or unrelated to an end goal, it fails to even conceptualize the essence of eternity or religion.

But here is where the system really breaks down: In pragmatism, the question is not "Is this belief accurate?" but rather "Is this belief going to better my life?" One can immediately perceive that "better" requires some standard of measurement. “If good work is accomplished, then a belief or practice is vindicated.” I've mentioned this before, but here the question is begged: What is “good”? To define good, there must be a belief system. Therefore, pragmatism holds to all sorts of metaphysical beliefs about which is good and beneficial, and useful to a goal, but they do not question that belief system since they are unaware of it.

For instance, if the ends justify the means, as they surely must do in pragmatism, who decides which are the means and which are the end goals? The pragmatists would find the old concept of "disinterested love" a playful riddle, for it questions not whether the means or the end is more important, but rather which is the means and which is the end goal in love. Is love means to an end, or is it the end goal itself? A french lady from centuries ago, Héloise, discussed “tensions between love as a means to an end (e.g., satisfaction of sexual appetites) and what she called indifferent love. This latter term refers to love in its own right or love for the sake of love." How would a pragmatist be able to advise a person, and then test the end result, if they do not first have an overarching theory of what the end results should be? One pragmatist may say that love is an end in and of itself, and another might question love in regard to what it achieves, as though something else is the end goal. Pragmatism only works from inside some formerly established system, which system must be judged by another scale than “what works,” since asking “what works” only begs the question of what the standard is.

References:

King, D. B., Viney, W., & Woody, W. D. (2009). A history of psychology: ideas and context (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Two lefts make a... Wrong?

What follows is a shortened transcription of a hypnotic story, which I myself found quite amusing and fun to read. So without further ado, our story begins...

There are so many directions that you can follow when you allow your unconscious to do it for you. Just as there are many different directions you can follow physically; I'll give you an example. Some summers ago, I was traveling all alone on the highway in my car, just paying close attention to the sound of the engine and knowing that slowly but surely I was heading into another state. And in that state there was a particular person I wished to see, a particular experience I was looking forward to in that other state. However, while I knew the general set of directions regarding how to get where I wanted to go, I could not for the life of me remember the proper order in which those turns occurred ...

I did know that from where I was there then, I thought to myself, I don't want to be here now. I take a combination of three right turns and three left turns... But I don't quite know which is the right series of rights and lefts.

[ Try not to get confused now! ]

I'll take a right here- I think that's right, and then a left, which means I'm left with two lefts and two rights. So all right, I'll take another left, which means I'm now left with a left and a right and a right. If I take a right, I'll be left with a right and another right … But I don't think that is right, so I'll take a right first, and then a left, and now I'm left with a right, and so I take the right, and … Dead end. It's the wrong way. And so now I've got to go back to the starting point, so as not to get completely left behind … So I begin to back track and now take three rights and three lefts again, except that each turn is now the opposite from the other direction … Everything is reversed ... Now which was then a right is now a left … And that which was left then is now right … So for every right then it is right now to take a right, and now I'm back at the beginning, ready to begin again... and so I begin again... [etc]

And after a while I became so tired, so confused, that I didn't know and didn't care where to turn next... I couldn't tell a right from a left, now a left from a left … I couldn't figure out whether taking a left was right, or whether taking a right was right. So I pulled off to the side of the road, turned off the engine, and sat there with my eyes closed and said to myself: “To hell with trying to figure it out. Stop all this activity and just relax...” And I did.

The Authoritative Dictionary of “Yo”

The reference guide that you all have been waiting for! This dictionary defines clearly the twenty-five different standard meanings of the word.

If you thought that this word is simple, prepare to be enlightened. If you are confused about how to interpret a word with so many different meanings, let me just clarify that you can usually figure out how it's being used by the tone of voice, facial expression, context of situation, and relational context. For example, two friends would not use the word “yo” to mean #11, etc.

1. Hi

2. Hi!

3. Hi :)

4. I like you

5. I'm happy

6. I'm sad

7. I want your attention

8. (filler word)

9. I've had a long day and I'm happy to see you

10. You make me happy

11. I love you

12. I agree with you

13. I don't have a response to that

14. You are awesome

15. I love looking into your eyes

16. You keep making my mind go blank

17. You are cute

18. I don't want you to leave

19. I'm sad, but it makes me feel better to know that you care

20. Where'd you go?

21. I'm sad cus I'm sorry

22. I'm sad cus you seem to be unhappy with me

23. I care and empathize with you

24. It's nice just to be here with you

25. I just wanted to say something

All means All and that's All All means

As I was reading "The Bondage of the Will," by Martin Luther (translated into a language I understand by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnson), one thing that I really appreciated was Luther's understanding and respect for the word "all."

Now, the word "all" refers to different qualities in different contexts, and that's important to remember. For instance, saying "I am holding all the money that I own" refers to a smaller quantity of money than does the statement "My parents own all the money in the world." The word "all" is used to delineate or refer to everything within a particular set of boundaries.

Sometimes this set of boundaries is stated very clearly: "I own all the crayons in this box."

Sometimes this set of boundaries is stated in an implicit, but obvious, way: "You guys ate all the pizza (that our parents bought and brought home tonight)!!!"

No one would accidentally suppose (unless they had a learning disability of some sort) that the above remark was an accusations that the "guys" had eaten all the pizza in the whole world, or even in the whole state.

Now, if the set of boundaries is meant to be implicit, but is not clear, then it's poor communication, a bad joke, or just an attempt to get on someone's nerves:

"I rescued all of your pets from your home before it burned down. Well, no, I didn't get Jojo or Fifi, but I got Doc and Jiji! When I said 'all of your pets,' I mean 'all without distinction,' not 'all without exception.' I rescued one of your dogs AND one of your cats!"

[Note: It is equally annoying if you say "all," and people misinterpret it to say that you "really meant" just "some." For instance:

Mom -"I want all the dishes dishes in this house to be done when I get home."

time passes ...

Mom - "Why are the dishes not all done?"

Son - "I don't know what you are talking about. I did all of the dishes that were hidden in my room at the time you gave the order. I knew that you couldn't possibly have meant more than that, because you are very reasonable person."]

So, in all, if you are trying to delineate or refer to everything within a particular set of boundaries, it is your responsibility to make sure that the boundaries are plain and obvious. If the boundaries are obvious, then they can be stated implicitly, but it not, it is necessary to spell them out in explicit terms.

And all of this has to do with...? My appreciation for Martin Luther's understanding of the word "all," as referred to in his book.

"There are no obscure or ambiguous words here: the gospel of the power of God is necessary 'to Jews and Greeks', that is, to all men, that they may by believing be saved from from the wrath revealed."

"By saying 'all,' he exempts none."

"When he says 'all,' he excepts none; not the power of 'free-will', nor any worker, whether he works and endeavors or not; he is of necessity included with the rest among the 'all'."

"Speaking for myself, I am astounded that, when Paul so often uses these comprehensive terms, 'all', 'none', 'not', 'never', 'without', as in: 'they are all gone out the way, there is none righteous, none that doeth good, no, not one'; 'all are sinners condemned by the offense of one'...

I am amazed, I repeat, how it has happened that in face of these comprehensive terms and statements, others that are contrary, yes, contradictory to them should have won acceptance, such as: 'Some are not gone out of the way, are not unrighteous, are not evil, are not sinners, are not condemned; there is something in man that is good and strives after good'; as though he who strives after good, whoever he may be, is not covered by the terms: 'all', 'none', and 'not'!"

"Personally, I could find nothing, even if I wished, to advance in reply against Paul, but would be forced to myself the power of my own 'free-will', and its endeavor with it, among the 'all' and 'none' of which Paul speaks -- unless we are to introduce a new grammar, and a new mode of speech!"

"Had Paul used such an expression once, or in one place only, it might have been permissible to suspect a figure of speech and to isolate and strain the words. But as it, he uses such expressions constantly, in both affirmation and negative sentences..."

Impeccable logic! But compare this with some misguided claims of today:

Then compare those claims to what the Scripture actually says, when you allow it to speak for itself:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" Acts 17:30

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:3-4

"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 John 2:2

"And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world." John 12:47

"Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" 1 Timothy 2:6

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone." Hebrews 2:9

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:16-17

'Any', 'all', 'all men everywhere', 'all men', 'everyone,' 'the world', 'the whole world.' There are no obscure or ambiguous words here.

For those who would say "but the world only means the elect from around the world," I would say that if, when God had the word “all” penned, He had only meant "the elect," He could have easily had that written. The word "elect" was, in fact, a regular part of New Testament vocabulary (see Mt 24:24, Mk 13:22, Luke 18:7, 1 Peter 1:2, Rom 8:33, Col 3:12, 1 Tim. 5:21, Titus 1:1) This is also true of the words "some" and "few."

Yet in the whole Bible, in the whole New Testament, not once does the Bible say that God only loved the Elect. Rather, we read again and again, positive affirmation that He loves all of mankind, and not because we deserve it; but because He is who He is.

It should be fairly clear to anyone reading the text in earnest that God loved the "world" so much that He gave Christ to die for that same "world," which is the same whole "world" that is in danger of being justly condemned. The Bible says "the world," it means "the world," and it is clearly the same "world" that deserves condemnation.

God is love, God loves the world, God loves all, and God loves all men. I see throughout the Scripture a landslide of verses that clearly teach this point. There is no one, whoever he may be, who is not covered by the terms: 'all', 'everyone', and 'all men everywhere'!" With Luther, I reason "Had [the Scripture] used such an expression once, or in one place only, it might have been permissible to suspect a figure of speech and to isolate and strain the words.” But as it, the constant use of such expressions much lead us to agree with Martin Luther on at least one point: "By saying 'all,' he exempts none."

Correct usage of the word "all":

“If I were hungry, I would not tell you; For the world is Mine, and all its fullness.” Psalm 50:12