The last two days have been major stressors for me at work. I was assigned a number of bugs to verify were fixed, only to sit staring at the screen as if the words were in Hangeul. I knew they should have been easily tested and cleared, but I just could not make sense of anything. I stared, and I rubbed my aching forehead.
Last night I talked with my brother Dan about how frustrated I was, and knew it was really just a matter of experience. I had become very comfortable in my telecom job (even complacent). I had amassed a skill set over 10 years, and the job was pretty easy (with occasional exceptions). But now I felt like I knew nothing; that I was starting all over again. I was really doubting myself.
Later, I talked with Devon about having had lunch with an old co-worker, and he lamented that I could have stayed at the telecom job instead of winding up where I am now. But hindsight is 20/20, we said. When I left that company to go to Arizona, I assumed we would all be laid off soon. That was the climate there. And, in fact, nearly every IT job there except mine has been outsourced.
Even if I wouldn’t lose my job, I reasoned at the time, the job in Arizona was more along the lines I wanted to move with my career, and the pay was much better. It didn’t turn out to be all it had promised to be. And being separated from family and friends while living in an inhospitable environment became too much. The next move led to a very long stretch of unemployment and financial hardship.
With all that weighing on my mind, I came to work today feeling as if I had fallen from a great height. Once on top of the world, I was fighting for a bleak existence. The mighty had fallen, and it didn’t look like he would ever get up again. I felt a destitute life was ahead.
These were all gloomy thoughts, indeed. I decided to just focus on the job at hand. Eventually, I had a breakthrough on my assigned tasks. I’m not standing on top of the world again, but I do at least feel some efficacy in my life, at least for the moment. I don’t know what comes next. Maybe the next task assigned to me will be as difficult for me to overcome. Or maybe the puzzle pieces I connected this morning will help move me forward more gracefully.
Of course, there is question as to whether I want to be “on top of the world” again (or if I ever really was). The struggles I’ve had since leaving that telecom job here in Overland Park has led me to have a renewed appreciation of simplicity in life. Being one of the mighty was tiring, and I had set aside many things I enjoyed in life for the sake of playing the part society seemed to want me to play. I may have made society happy in those roles, but I wasn’t happy. Though I have difficulties to overcome, especially in the realm of personal finance, I’m feeling much happier these days than I have in a long time.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Accepting Happiness
I’m a cynical person. Anyone who knows me even casually knows that I like to question everything, even those beliefs I hold most dear. If someone tells me the sky is blue, I’ll look up and say, “How do I know that the blue you see is the same blue that I see?” On the one hand, I think it is important to have people in the world that refuse to be sure of anything. On the other hand, I think it drags me down, locking me into circles of thought that make it hard to enjoy life.
I still let myself follow these circles of thought sometimes, trying to find some deeper truth to things around me, but I’m also limiting that time. Perhaps this is why I have not been writing much. Instead, I like to break out of those trains of thought and practice what I call “accepting happiness.” In my day-to-day affairs, I have found it good practice to interrupt my musings by saying something to myself along the lines of, “I don’t want to focus on that right now. I want to be happy right now.”
On the surface, this seems corny. But I have to admit, though it’s simple, it has a profound effect on my attitude and helps me keep from circling down into my cynical deconstruction of ideas. I still treasure my “philosophy time,” but part of what philosophy sets out to do, or should set out to do, is assist us in experiencing life. We cannot experience life when we are stuck alone in our thoughts.
I still let myself follow these circles of thought sometimes, trying to find some deeper truth to things around me, but I’m also limiting that time. Perhaps this is why I have not been writing much. Instead, I like to break out of those trains of thought and practice what I call “accepting happiness.” In my day-to-day affairs, I have found it good practice to interrupt my musings by saying something to myself along the lines of, “I don’t want to focus on that right now. I want to be happy right now.”
On the surface, this seems corny. But I have to admit, though it’s simple, it has a profound effect on my attitude and helps me keep from circling down into my cynical deconstruction of ideas. I still treasure my “philosophy time,” but part of what philosophy sets out to do, or should set out to do, is assist us in experiencing life. We cannot experience life when we are stuck alone in our thoughts.
Friday, April 2, 2010
The Common Thread
Three stories have caught my attention in the paper lately, and though they were not printed side-by-side, I felt there was a connection between them. But I couldn’t quite place what it was. On the surface, it seemed to be they were connected by ideology I am opposed to, but as I thought more about the stories, I knew there was something else that drew my attention to them.
The first story was about the sentencing hearing for Scott Roeder. He is the man who murdered abortion doctor George Tiller. Roeder had apparently been obsessed with the thought of killing Tiller for more than a decade, and had even visited Tiller’s church several times over that period, seeking his victim out.
Throughout the trial, and coming to a spearhead during the sentencing, was Roeder’s insistence that his actions were justified and that, if the court followed the law of God instead of the law of Man, he would be acquitted. Roeder continually interrupted the proceedings, and at one point demanded to know why he was not able to use his right to Free Speech.
Another story has at its center the First Amendment and free speech rights. In southern Missouri, Glenn Miller is running as a write-in candidate for U.S. Senate. At issue is whether he is a legally recognized candidate, allowing him cheap advertising on broadcast media. Why would this be an issue? Because Miller is a leader in the white supremacist movement and his ads attack blacks and Jews.
Stations are reticent to air his ads, and many have even taken the step of airing a disclaimer before the ad. This helps Miller, he admits, because it catches the listener’s attention, causing them to listen to his message more closely. Miller knows he can’t win, but he is taking advantage of the election laws to get his message heard. Of course, the ads don’t go so far as advocating the murder of blacks or Jews, that has been a focus of his rhetoric in the past.
The third story also revolves around free speech. Westboro Baptist Church has won their appeal against Albert Snyder, who sued the church for damages after they picketed his son’s funeral. Most people in the Kansas City area are familiar with Westboro Baptist, though they are probably more familiar with the name Fred Phelps, the leader of the church. Others may simply recognize the iconic “God Hates Fags” sign they carry at protests against funerals of AIDS victims and soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Westboro was originally ordered to pay $11 million to Snyder, but upon appeal it was overturned, and Snyder was ordered to pay the $16,510.80 court costs of the church. That is not the big win for Westboro, however, because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Snyder’s appeal. This is the penultimate outcome for Fred Phelps’ anti-homosexual campaign. He gets to have the top court in the country possibly legitimize his public attacks on those he despises.
I originally thought these stories were all connected by free speech rights, but the more I considered it, I felt there was something more to it. At some point, the thought crossed my mind, “Some people actually see Roeder as a hero.” Then I realized that there are others who see Phelps or Miller as heroes also. That was the common thread…heroism.
This made me consider heroes. Could I ever hold someone as radical as these people as a hero? What about the Founding Fathers? They were radicals, weren’t they? And as an American, I see them as heroes, standing up for what they believed in, even if it went against the law or public opinion (in the circle of Loyalists, the rebels were going against what the Loyalists thought was right). Is there any cause I could accept or even commit heinous acts in support of? Outrageous taxation? Rampant financial corruption? Gay marriage?
I have a deep feeling of loyalty to the people I love, and could easily defend them with force, but I’m not sure I have found an idea that I feel should be instituted or defended by force. I feel the slow process of conciliation is the best approach to sustained acceptance of an idea. But there must be a point where I’m ready to take drastic action. I just have not seen it yet.
How about you?
The first story was about the sentencing hearing for Scott Roeder. He is the man who murdered abortion doctor George Tiller. Roeder had apparently been obsessed with the thought of killing Tiller for more than a decade, and had even visited Tiller’s church several times over that period, seeking his victim out.
Throughout the trial, and coming to a spearhead during the sentencing, was Roeder’s insistence that his actions were justified and that, if the court followed the law of God instead of the law of Man, he would be acquitted. Roeder continually interrupted the proceedings, and at one point demanded to know why he was not able to use his right to Free Speech.
Another story has at its center the First Amendment and free speech rights. In southern Missouri, Glenn Miller is running as a write-in candidate for U.S. Senate. At issue is whether he is a legally recognized candidate, allowing him cheap advertising on broadcast media. Why would this be an issue? Because Miller is a leader in the white supremacist movement and his ads attack blacks and Jews.
Stations are reticent to air his ads, and many have even taken the step of airing a disclaimer before the ad. This helps Miller, he admits, because it catches the listener’s attention, causing them to listen to his message more closely. Miller knows he can’t win, but he is taking advantage of the election laws to get his message heard. Of course, the ads don’t go so far as advocating the murder of blacks or Jews, that has been a focus of his rhetoric in the past.
The third story also revolves around free speech. Westboro Baptist Church has won their appeal against Albert Snyder, who sued the church for damages after they picketed his son’s funeral. Most people in the Kansas City area are familiar with Westboro Baptist, though they are probably more familiar with the name Fred Phelps, the leader of the church. Others may simply recognize the iconic “God Hates Fags” sign they carry at protests against funerals of AIDS victims and soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Westboro was originally ordered to pay $11 million to Snyder, but upon appeal it was overturned, and Snyder was ordered to pay the $16,510.80 court costs of the church. That is not the big win for Westboro, however, because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Snyder’s appeal. This is the penultimate outcome for Fred Phelps’ anti-homosexual campaign. He gets to have the top court in the country possibly legitimize his public attacks on those he despises.
I originally thought these stories were all connected by free speech rights, but the more I considered it, I felt there was something more to it. At some point, the thought crossed my mind, “Some people actually see Roeder as a hero.” Then I realized that there are others who see Phelps or Miller as heroes also. That was the common thread…heroism.
This made me consider heroes. Could I ever hold someone as radical as these people as a hero? What about the Founding Fathers? They were radicals, weren’t they? And as an American, I see them as heroes, standing up for what they believed in, even if it went against the law or public opinion (in the circle of Loyalists, the rebels were going against what the Loyalists thought was right). Is there any cause I could accept or even commit heinous acts in support of? Outrageous taxation? Rampant financial corruption? Gay marriage?
I have a deep feeling of loyalty to the people I love, and could easily defend them with force, but I’m not sure I have found an idea that I feel should be instituted or defended by force. I feel the slow process of conciliation is the best approach to sustained acceptance of an idea. But there must be a point where I’m ready to take drastic action. I just have not seen it yet.
How about you?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Serving the Lord
One of the things that have never quite set right with me about Christianity is the notion that we humans must serve a master or king. I can’t understand this notion. I come from a society that was born from the idea that we should not serve a king, and later shed the idea that any person should be forced to serve a master. And yet, this is the language we hear from Christians. Serve the Lord.
Is this the whole basis of Christianity? Or is this just the misguided notion of American Christianity? Is the message the same globally among all Christians? I can see why Christianity would be popular, say, in African nations where tribalism is still very much recognized. A person serves a tribal leader, or in more developed areas they might serve a warlord, as in Somalia. The promise of Christ the King, a ruler of immense power that can wipe out any warlord or tribal monarch, must be a beautiful idea as you cower from the bloody rule of these earthly kings. But in America, this idea falls flat.
Yet, I’m not sure that idealism of serving the master hasn’t crept into our “democracy.” Rhetorically, we say the government is supposed to serve us, The People. In practice, it looks quite different. We seem to be subjects of The State. We serve The State. Though The People are supposed to wield the power in a democracy, this is not what we have in America. The federal government has time and again been given a lordship over the citizens in the interest of self-preservation. The government must be able to protect itself from all enemies, foreign and domestic, after all.
Perhaps this helps keep Christianity alive in America, because we truly have not realized the freedom that democracy promises. We serve the faceless, amoral State. The promise of the King of Kings gives the masses hope that the injustices of our society will be righted in the hereafter. Or maybe the Kingdom of Heaven will be realized in the here and now if we all turn to the Almighty, who will establish His rule here on earth.
If the structure of master and servant is still valid, what alternative can we offer? One of harmony? Perhaps. But how do we define that? What is harmony? Harmony between what or whom? I suppose I would start with the idea that harmony is existing in a way that is beneficial to all parties involved. But will this idea stand up under scrutiny? For now, I will leave it at that, but with the realization that the next question becomes: How do we know what is beneficial to all?
Is this the whole basis of Christianity? Or is this just the misguided notion of American Christianity? Is the message the same globally among all Christians? I can see why Christianity would be popular, say, in African nations where tribalism is still very much recognized. A person serves a tribal leader, or in more developed areas they might serve a warlord, as in Somalia. The promise of Christ the King, a ruler of immense power that can wipe out any warlord or tribal monarch, must be a beautiful idea as you cower from the bloody rule of these earthly kings. But in America, this idea falls flat.
Yet, I’m not sure that idealism of serving the master hasn’t crept into our “democracy.” Rhetorically, we say the government is supposed to serve us, The People. In practice, it looks quite different. We seem to be subjects of The State. We serve The State. Though The People are supposed to wield the power in a democracy, this is not what we have in America. The federal government has time and again been given a lordship over the citizens in the interest of self-preservation. The government must be able to protect itself from all enemies, foreign and domestic, after all.
Perhaps this helps keep Christianity alive in America, because we truly have not realized the freedom that democracy promises. We serve the faceless, amoral State. The promise of the King of Kings gives the masses hope that the injustices of our society will be righted in the hereafter. Or maybe the Kingdom of Heaven will be realized in the here and now if we all turn to the Almighty, who will establish His rule here on earth.
If the structure of master and servant is still valid, what alternative can we offer? One of harmony? Perhaps. But how do we define that? What is harmony? Harmony between what or whom? I suppose I would start with the idea that harmony is existing in a way that is beneficial to all parties involved. But will this idea stand up under scrutiny? For now, I will leave it at that, but with the realization that the next question becomes: How do we know what is beneficial to all?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
My Life Stance at 40: A Manifesto
Introduction
After 40 years on this earth, I have decided to formally reflect on what my experiences have led me to believe at this stage in my life. Some beliefs have been consistent throughout my life, some have changed drastically, and others started out on one side of the spectrum, swung to the other side, ultimately returning to some point in between.
Overall, I believe that Humanity is inherently good, and that it is imperative that we can overcome the difficulties we face in society. To do so, we must disassociate ourselves from a selfish worldview and live to serve each other. Some have the opportunity to help Humanity on a grand scale, while the rest of us can best do our service to those in our immediate area.
Individualism vs. Collectivism
Cultures throughout the world differ in many ways, and one difference that stands out when looking from a Western perspective is that of Individualism and Collectivism. The American concept of the rugged individual setting out to subdue nature still endures. Americans believed it was their destiny to conquer new lands and the people that lived there.
Those days have passed, and American society has taken a new shape. It is time to abandon the myth of the rugged individual and create a new vision of the ideal American. It should be replaced with a citizen who participates in his or her community, seeking mutual benefits for everyone.
However, this participation should be balanced with individuality, not at the expense of it. Conformity to the group is just as dangerous to our society as every-man-for-himself, as we have seen through such examples as segregation.
The Intellect
The human animal, so far as we know, is the only animal which has the ability of higher reasoning. Though we still have the biological urges that any animal has, we cannot subordinate our intellectual capacity to basal instincts. Whether we attribute our intelligence to a divinity, to an evolutionary process, or a combination of the two, the fact remains that we have something that other animals do not have: the intellect. The most important thing an individual can do for him or herself, as well as for society, is to develop the intellect to its fullest.
The best way to develop the intellect is through a broad education of the liberal arts. We, as a society, have trended toward specialization in education. Through specialization, we have lost a sense of connection to others through a shared. Instead of creating an individual that can function within a society, we have created an isolated being unable to connect to others.
A broad education in the liberal arts will not turn out an automaton of like-thinkers as some would lead us to believe. By looking through the history of Western thought alone, we see that those who received a similar education still ended up with radically different ideas. However, through their shared education, these individuals were able to effectively communicate their ideas to others. Some ideas were accepted, others rejected, or more likely a synthesis of ideas was created.
Humanity
The debate over whether God sits high atop a throne looking down on us is moot. The problems we face as humans have been caused by humans. Many think we must turn to a deity in prayer to solve these problems, yet our problems go unsolved. Human problems require human action.
When we turn our eyes away from Humanity, we turn away from being humane. If we let the suffering of others go on because we are taught that Humanity is inherently evil and must focus our attention on the Divine, then we have truly acted evilly through our neglect.
Compassion must drive our actions, but be tempered in reason. To act strictly on emotion, or conversely on reason alone, we will not solve the problems we face. The two must work in harmony.
Nature
In addition to our internal harmony between emotion and reason, and our balance between the individual and society, we must also recognize that we humans are but a small part of a greater, interconnected system of Nature. The destruction of our environment is the destruction of ourselves. As human problems must be solved by humans, problems within our natural environment must be solved by agents of nature. We must be good stewards and sustain the system which sustains us.
That is not to say that all problems in Nature are caused solely by humans. There are fluctuations and cycles that have drivers other than humanity. As a species we may be forced to make decisions that take us from a position of participant to a position of controller in order to ensure our survival. When Humanity is faced with these circumstances and must take control for our survival, we must seek to return to the role of participant quickly, abdicating our role of conqueror.
Economy vs. Democracy
The current economic environment has seen large corporations gaining equal or greater rights as the people who make up our citizenry. Corporations are not citizens. They should not be viewed as having the same rights as citizens.
Corporations have grown so powerful that they block the average citizen from democratically taking part in the marketplace. The cost to start up and compete against these corporate fiefdoms is too high. Citizens must serve the corporate Lords, or try to make a living on the scraps of business the Lords do not find profitable enough to get into themselves.
Finally, the decisions large corporations make often have consequences that go beyond their shareholders or their customers. A corporation or industry can make business decisions that affect the whole of society, yet we do not have a democratic vote in who these decision makers are. We have been stripped of our democracy in the economy.
It is time to scrap corporate control of our economy. The marketplace should be built to encourage a structure that allows participation by all citizens as business owners, whether as sole proprietors, partners, or part of a democratic model such as a cooperative.
After 40 years on this earth, I have decided to formally reflect on what my experiences have led me to believe at this stage in my life. Some beliefs have been consistent throughout my life, some have changed drastically, and others started out on one side of the spectrum, swung to the other side, ultimately returning to some point in between.
Overall, I believe that Humanity is inherently good, and that it is imperative that we can overcome the difficulties we face in society. To do so, we must disassociate ourselves from a selfish worldview and live to serve each other. Some have the opportunity to help Humanity on a grand scale, while the rest of us can best do our service to those in our immediate area.
Individualism vs. Collectivism
Cultures throughout the world differ in many ways, and one difference that stands out when looking from a Western perspective is that of Individualism and Collectivism. The American concept of the rugged individual setting out to subdue nature still endures. Americans believed it was their destiny to conquer new lands and the people that lived there.
Those days have passed, and American society has taken a new shape. It is time to abandon the myth of the rugged individual and create a new vision of the ideal American. It should be replaced with a citizen who participates in his or her community, seeking mutual benefits for everyone.
However, this participation should be balanced with individuality, not at the expense of it. Conformity to the group is just as dangerous to our society as every-man-for-himself, as we have seen through such examples as segregation.
The Intellect
The human animal, so far as we know, is the only animal which has the ability of higher reasoning. Though we still have the biological urges that any animal has, we cannot subordinate our intellectual capacity to basal instincts. Whether we attribute our intelligence to a divinity, to an evolutionary process, or a combination of the two, the fact remains that we have something that other animals do not have: the intellect. The most important thing an individual can do for him or herself, as well as for society, is to develop the intellect to its fullest.
The best way to develop the intellect is through a broad education of the liberal arts. We, as a society, have trended toward specialization in education. Through specialization, we have lost a sense of connection to others through a shared. Instead of creating an individual that can function within a society, we have created an isolated being unable to connect to others.
A broad education in the liberal arts will not turn out an automaton of like-thinkers as some would lead us to believe. By looking through the history of Western thought alone, we see that those who received a similar education still ended up with radically different ideas. However, through their shared education, these individuals were able to effectively communicate their ideas to others. Some ideas were accepted, others rejected, or more likely a synthesis of ideas was created.
Humanity
The debate over whether God sits high atop a throne looking down on us is moot. The problems we face as humans have been caused by humans. Many think we must turn to a deity in prayer to solve these problems, yet our problems go unsolved. Human problems require human action.
When we turn our eyes away from Humanity, we turn away from being humane. If we let the suffering of others go on because we are taught that Humanity is inherently evil and must focus our attention on the Divine, then we have truly acted evilly through our neglect.
Compassion must drive our actions, but be tempered in reason. To act strictly on emotion, or conversely on reason alone, we will not solve the problems we face. The two must work in harmony.
Nature
In addition to our internal harmony between emotion and reason, and our balance between the individual and society, we must also recognize that we humans are but a small part of a greater, interconnected system of Nature. The destruction of our environment is the destruction of ourselves. As human problems must be solved by humans, problems within our natural environment must be solved by agents of nature. We must be good stewards and sustain the system which sustains us.
That is not to say that all problems in Nature are caused solely by humans. There are fluctuations and cycles that have drivers other than humanity. As a species we may be forced to make decisions that take us from a position of participant to a position of controller in order to ensure our survival. When Humanity is faced with these circumstances and must take control for our survival, we must seek to return to the role of participant quickly, abdicating our role of conqueror.
Economy vs. Democracy
The current economic environment has seen large corporations gaining equal or greater rights as the people who make up our citizenry. Corporations are not citizens. They should not be viewed as having the same rights as citizens.
Corporations have grown so powerful that they block the average citizen from democratically taking part in the marketplace. The cost to start up and compete against these corporate fiefdoms is too high. Citizens must serve the corporate Lords, or try to make a living on the scraps of business the Lords do not find profitable enough to get into themselves.
Finally, the decisions large corporations make often have consequences that go beyond their shareholders or their customers. A corporation or industry can make business decisions that affect the whole of society, yet we do not have a democratic vote in who these decision makers are. We have been stripped of our democracy in the economy.
It is time to scrap corporate control of our economy. The marketplace should be built to encourage a structure that allows participation by all citizens as business owners, whether as sole proprietors, partners, or part of a democratic model such as a cooperative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
