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

Sovereignty and Free Will

This is a very short blog for your consideration: food for thought, as it were. As I prepared to teach Sunday School this week, on the topic of God giving Christians the Holy Spirit as a "Helper" to enable us to obey His commands and escape from temptation, I read this fascinating passage. All passages in the Bible are excellent, and this one is especially helpful for the purpose of clarifying the way I see man's freedom and God's Sovereignty.

[This relates to the Sunday School lesson because God allows us to either give in to temptation and will discipline us, or accept His day-to-day grace and escape temptation, as He promised. God allows this choice, and yet is Sovereign.]

Consider, then, the following passage in which a messenger of the Lord delivers to David a message of discipline:

1 Chronicles 21:11-12
So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Choose for yourself, either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated by your foes with the sword of your enemies overtaking you, or else for three days the sword of the LORD—the plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’”

In this, we see that God wants David to choose between three options. Yes, God, in his Sovereignty, WILLS that a person make a choice. God could choose for Himself. However, God is the boss, and if He wants a person to choose, then that person will be the one to choose. Why? Because God is in control, and He gets what He wants, according to the counsel of His will.

David gets a choice here. Does that make him in charge? Obviously not! If David was in charge, he wouldn't want to choose any of those punishments; he would choose peace, safety, and prosperity! As you can see, then, David is not in charge, even though he has a choice. God is in charge.

Demystifying Hypnosis

I had heard the word “hypnosis” tossed around a few times over the years, but I only stopped to think about the concept after I saw a stage-show in Knott's Scary Farm's “Haunt” event in 2008. In the show, a hypnotist called “the hypno-chick” chose about 20 members of the audience to participate in the show and be hypnotized. All of my life, I've been a people-watcher, and I know what responses to expect from people, given different character qualities, different moods, and various circumstances. What fascinated me about the show is that the people, in responding to the various statements given to them (IE suggestions that the onlookers were zombies who were going to attack, etc) weren't acting. I know acting. The participants were not faking.

Therefore, my observations stuck in my head, and I pondered the topic. Since that point in time, I've heard people's differing opinions on hypnosis, and for the most part they fall into two categories. Many people see hypnosis as fake: it's an act, it's a fraud, it's pretend, it's make-believe, it's people pretending to believe things they don't believe and feel things they don't feel, so that they can act a certain way or have fun or trick people. The other group of people take hypnotism much more seriously, they think that it's ominous: dangerous, mind-control, scary, irresponsible, destructive, or deceptive. Basically, most people seem to feel vaguely that hypnosis is either fake or that it will steal your mind and soul.

Now, since I was first introduced to the concept, I have been able to do my own research on the topic, including taking an online course about what hypnosis is, and how it works, from The Hypnosis Motivation Institute. Now here's the first question: is hypnosis fake? Is it just an act? A set of people pretending to be hypnotized for whatever reason? I would certainly say “no.” People find hypnosis helpful for a bunch of staple goals, such as pain reduction (even in surgery), confidence in public speaking, or breaking an addiction (for instance, to cigarettes). There is good evidence that it actually works. One could pin it all on a placebo effect, except that placebo effect can only explain a success rate of 33.4%, not anything like 75%. Additionally, the placebo effect would not be powerful enough to explain how a man, under hypnosis, would be able to skip anesthetic and yet experience a 83-minute surgery on his hand without pain.

The effects are not fake, and therefore, whatever hypnosis is, it isn't a fraud. Why do these things work, and how? Good question! I like the way you think.

Two Applications of Hypnosis

I do not think that hypnosis is mind-control, I do not think that it is dangerous, and I don't think that it could cause you to do anything that goes against your convictions. It's impossible to hypnotize a non-violent person and get them to even do so much as to hit another person with a piece of printer paper! (Yes, leading hypnotherapy professions and researchers have tried these various things, to see what the limitations of hypnosis are.) Now, there are two applications of hypnosis: short term, and long term. The short term applications include relaxation, being in a dream-like state, pain management, or reacting to hypothetical situations as though they were real (for instance, as in stage hypnosis shows). The (currently known) long term applications can include weight-loss, ceasing addiction, increasing confidence, and more healthy breathing patterns.

The Subconscious

How does it work? Hypnosis works by effecting the subconscious. Well that just brings up more questions! What is the subconscious? Is it some sort of psycho-babble concept that offers half-baked explanations of human motivations? The subconscious is actually quite simple, it consists of any function of your brain which is not consciously controlled. If you are driving along, consciously thinking about your date later that night, and then you inadvertently miss your exit, it's because you were delegating the task of “driving” to your subconscious, while you set your conscious thoughts toward whatever you're thinking about. Your subconscious keeps track of habits and memory of physical skills. You don't have to try to remember how to tie your shoe, you just do it. “How to tie a shoe” is a task stored in your subconscious, and you no longer have to consciously think about how to go about doing it. Who makes up your dreams? You do. You don't consciously think up your dream scenarios, but it is your brain inventing them. Therefore, it's controlled by your subconscious.

Dreaming is important for something else as well, REM sleep helps us to process new information and store long term memories. The Amygdala also keeps track of situations which have hurt us in the past, so that we can avoid them in the future. Without any sleep for an extended period of time, a person can actually go insane. So basically, the subconscious serves short-term and long term functions. Short-term, it provides us with dreams, and allows our frontal lobe to take a break while we rest. Long term, it keeps track of habits, activities we repeat, fears, processing memory and learning, and associations. Therefore, it makes sense that hypnosis can be used for short-term functions, or long-term goals.

Trust

One reason I say that hypnosis is not dangerous is that, unlike brain-washing, it is trust-based, in both applications. If a person does not want to be hypnotized, they cannot be hypnotized. If a person does not feel safe being hypnotized, then they won't be hypnotized. If a person does not trust the hypnotist, they will not be hypnotized. Hypnosis is a lot like guided imagery: a person makes a suggestion of what you can imagine (imagine a place which makes you feel sad), and you choose to take that suggestion and actually look at it in your mind. A hypnotist leads, and the person follows. If there is a lack of trust, the hypnotherapist can lead, but no one will follow, and so there is no hypnosis going on.

What about once a person is already in a the state of hypnosis? Is it still a trust-based lead-and-follow relationship? Absolutely! For instance, for people who are under hypnosis, if the hypnotist is repeating back to them something they want to believe (IE “You no longer feel compelled to pick up a cigarette when you are stressed, instead you feel like relaxing.”), and the person does not accept that message, it is called an “ab-reaction.” If an ab-reaction occurs, the therapist will not repeat the message, but rather will ask the subject about their reaction, once they are in a normal state of alertness. You can never force someone to believe something they wouldn't otherwise believe, in long term application.

Short-term Effect: A Guided Dream

In short-term application, you can get someone to temporarily accept a false reality and react to it as if it were real – it's like a guided dream where the hypnotists narrates what the dream is, and the hypnotized person chooses how to react to the dream. This is the point at which you can understand why a person would do, under hypnotism, something they have a conviction against doing in real life – they are still aware of the their choices and actions, just like you determine your choices in a dream, even if they forget what happened after hypnosis ends, just like people forget their dreams

Why do people forget their dreams? Well, when you are asleep, the part of your brain which judges realities objectively to see if they make sense, and the part of your brain which records memory, is off. This explains why, when asleep, we don't question impossibilities – why is it that you walk into a house, and then as you enter another room, it's your friend's house instead? It also explains why you forget dreams, unless you quickly make a conscious effort to record them into your memory when you are more awake. Similarly, through the “guided dream” sort of stage hypnosis, the same parts of the brain are turned off, and the participants may not question impossibilities, or remember what happened very clearly. Even so, while under hypnosis, they are completely aware of their thoughts and decisions. Do we make long-term changes in what we believe based on a dream, though? No. For the same reason, stage hypnotism, which is only like a guided dream sequence, does not produce lasting changes (like the other uses of hypnotism can do).

Short-term Effect: Pain Management

Another short-term use of hypnosis is pain reduction, such as in the case of child-birth or surgery with anesthesia. You do not consciously choose to feel pain; the pain is felt in your mind, but it's in the subconscious jurisdiction of the mind, and can therefore be managed through hypnosis. I do not have much further information of this, except to say that the ability to hypnotize a person who needs serious surgery when no pain drugs are available is one of the most humane ways of using hypnotism I've ever heard of.

(Continue with Part II)