Monthy Archive: October 2005
« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

October 03, 2005

Introspection : Birthdays

The "birthday season" has just passed in my house. My birthday, my wife's, my brother's and my father's all occur within 28 days of each other, so it makes for an interesting month.

I find that I have grown ambivalent about most of the trappings of the celebration. The issue is not the recognition that I am getting older (I feel no need to conceal my age from myself or others); but simply that the rituals no longer seem to fit.

Birthday cards strike me as an anachronism in the age of phones and internet. I appreciate people remembering my birthday; but I'd rather get a phone call or Email that is personal rather than some pre-packaged sentiment on a piece of paper.

Birthday parties were never that fun for me (being an introvert). I do enjoy spending time with a small group of friends; but these days the people I would most want to spend time with are scattered around the world, so getting together is impractical.

Birthday cake was fun as a kid; but my sweet tooth has diminished with the years and I'd generally rather have a cheese course than a dessert. Besides, I am more of a pie lover than a cake person.

Birthday presents are of course appreciated in principle; but I am thankfully at a point in my life where I can and do buy for myself most everything I am interesting in owning. Finding something that I actually want that I don't already own can be quite a challenge.

The idea of having a day where I get to set the agenda is also nice (this year we went up to Berkley to visit a store I like but rarely get to); but in general Anne is open to suggestions for activities year round, so it doesn't seem to make that much difference.

So in the end, what my birthday becomes is an excuse for a nice meal out someplace; and that’s OK… as long as no one tries to sing that silly song to me.

Posted by Steven at 03:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 10, 2005

Introspection : Input and Output

One of the recurring themes of this blog is my ongoing desire to seek balance in my life. There is just too much I want to do and not enough time, so I have been weeding through my life, pulling out those projects I realized I'll never get around to finishing (thus making more room for those that I may complete), discontinuing activities that don't provide enough benefit, etc.

Of course "balance" can be defined in terms of many dimensions. Just as I can balance my body left vs. right, but then fall forward because I did not balance front/back; so also one can achieve a balanced live according to one metric only to fail in others. So part of this process for me has been discovering the various dimensions of personal balance.

My current contemplation has been on the question of finding balance between input and output.

On the one hand, I read, watch television, see movies, play games. All of these activities can be used to bring things value into my life – knowledge, ideas, perspectives. On the other hand, I write, befriend, teach, serve (whether work, family, church, community). All of these activities (hopefully) give benefit to others in some way. It is the case that my various input activities inform my various output activities. What I read and watch affects what I write. Exposure to other points of view helps me as I interact with others, and so on.

But the question I have been asking myself is: am I putting enough energy into "output" to justify all of the time I spend on "input"? Or have I already accumulated enough knowledge, experience, perspectives to last me the remainder of my life? I don't think I am up to that point yet; but neither am I comfortable saying I am doing all I should to use what I have fed into my head over the years

Stepping back, these days my "output" primarily takes two forms. First, there is this blog; but given my recent frequency of postings, I clearly can not point to this as a shining example of contribution to society. Second, I am teaching a weekly Bible study (we are starting the book of Philippians this week). While that venue does provide a good opportunity to share some of what I have learned, an hour a week weighed against many hours of input activities seems rather paltry. In addition to those two, I do occasionally have the opportunity to share some what I have learned in private conversations; but those occasions are irregular and unpredictable.

The bottom line is that I think I need to spend more time sharing what's in my head. I need to make time each day for this blog. I need to set aside more time each week to creative writing projects. I need to look for other opportunities to teach.

What's the point of learning more if I don't share what I have already learned?

Posted by Steven at 07:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 11, 2005

TV : Fall TV Season 2005, the verdict

Well, particularly given my interest in allocating more time to "output" activities (see previous post), the time has come to make the decision on what TV shows I will continue to watch this Fall season (I am ignoring Summer/Winter shows like Battlestar Galactica who won't be airing new episodes until January when most of these shows are in re-runs).

Of the new shows. My keepers are:

Commander in Chief
This has started out very strong and is well worth watching. Good writing, good acting, interesting situations, a different POV from West Wing. My only concern is that the creator (Rod Lurie) has just been fired for delivering episodes way late and while I like the new show-runner (Steven Bochco) in general, it may well be that the reason the first few episodes were good was because of the time Lurie took on them.

My Name is Earl
This is my "guilty pleasure" this season. I watch it just for the laughs.

Bones
This is on my keeper list because of the characterizations and how they are being used. They have set up two very different characters with different views of the world (very similar to the Spock/McCoy relationship in the original Star Trek); but instead of just using that as background with the occasional one-liner thrown at each other, they seem to be really exploring those two points of view in their own right. As long as they keep exploring the character/POV issues, I'll keep watching.

Surface
So this season we had three invasion/mystery shows: Invasion, Threshold, and Surface. Invasion never grabbed me – they didn't give me enough bait to make me care, and the characters were largely forgettable. There may be a good story there; but at this rate it is going to take too long to tell it. Threshold was my favorite after the pilots – an intelligent "alien invasion" show. The problem is that the episodes have started to all feel alike to me. I am actually going to watch another couple of show; but it is hanging on by a thread. The show I have ended up committed to is Surface, largely because of they way they are telling the story with multiple disconnected threads and because they are giving just enough new information in each episode to keep me wanting more.

Of the old shows, my keepers are:

Lost
Still "the" water-cooler show of the season.

Grey's Anatomy
I keep expecting this to degenerate into a soap opera and it keeps surprising me with episodes that are actually meaningful.

Desperate Housewives
Another I expect to fail soon; but it has managed to continue find new and interesting things to say.

West Wing
This is on my list until the election. If they actually switch and bring in a Republican administration, I'll keep watching just to see if the new POV will change things. If Santos wins, I'll punt.

I'm also keeping Battlestar Galatica and Over There, which I think are each better than any of the network shows; but they are (or will shortly be) off-season.

The losers from last year are:

Medium
I had already decided that they seemed to have said all they had to say about her dealing with her abilities in "the real world", which was in my opinion the only thing that made the show interesting.

House
This was a tough decision. I still say this is a great show with a great character; and I still recommend this show to people. I just don't have the time to watch it. The fact that the medicine is all babble to me doesn’t help.

Alias
This was already falling of the bottom of my list last year, and has now officially been removed. It started very well; but its clear the writers didn't know where they were headed and it was only a metter of time before they ended up in the weeds. I hope Lost does not follow their path.

And in the Summer/Winder Season, I am dropping Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis. Stargate Atlantis never grabbed me; and while I will watch part 2 of the current SG-1 cliffhanger, I think they have played out this franchise.

Posted by Steven at 04:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 13, 2005

Allegories , Faith : Allegories

One problem I have when sharing my faith with other people is that the words I would like to be able to use often mean different things to the people I talk to. I say I am a "Christian", and that brings into people's mind some image of intolerance or irrelevance. I say "prayer" and it conjures images or boredom or futility. People's pre-conceived notions about faith speak louder and faster in their minds than I can ever respond.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that the best way to communicate my own experience is through allegory - stories that express what I experience via metaphor and analogy. Allegories are by nature imperfect (one should not read deep doctrine into them); but if they can help people understand that my experience may be a bit different from what they expect, it might be worth it.

I am therefore initiating a new category on my blog for me to post Christian allegories. Here's the first one:

----

Imagine the ultimate gymnastics tournament – bigger and more prestigious than the Olympics. In fact, to qualify to get into the tournament, you have to score a perfect "10", not on just one apparatus; but on every apparatus. Those are the standards and they are non-negotiable. There is however a loophole. Once a team qualifies, they are permitted to send a substitute gymnast in place of any qualifying team member.

Now the organizers of the tournament sent their own team to qualify, and they passed – they got a perfect 10 on all apparatus and thus qualified to attend the tournament. Then the team set up a gymnastics school to train people how to become great gymnasts. The deal with the school was if you join the school and allow them to train you, they would send you as a substitute to the tournament even if you couldn't actually score a perfect 10 on any apparatus; but you had to be willing to let them train you to be as good as you could be.

In the school, the coach (who had qualified for the tournament) would work with the students individually. Some days he would work with one student on their dismount, and another student on their grip and another student on tumbling. Each student however received personal instruction each day. The coach also encouraged all of the student to support each other – cheering each other on as they practiced, talking to each other about what they were learning; but always reminding them that he was the coach, not them.

There were some student the coach put in charge of organizing things – making sure the all of the equipment was ready, making sure people got to their sessions with the coach when they were needed; but while they had these added responsibilities they were still students like everyone else – they weren't even the best gymnasts; but the coach trusted them to create an environment in which the others could learn.

Now people reacted to all this in a number of ways.

Some people just didn't care, and they ignored the tournament entirely.

Some people tried to qualify for the tournament on their own, and while a few people managed to score a 10 in one apparatus, none scored 10's on every apparatus.

Some people signed up at the school so they could get into the tournament; but then ignored the coach and sat on the bench all day. Many of these even got worse at gymnastics because they weren't exercising.

Some people signed up at the school but always argued with the coach, telling the coach he was doing thing wrong (even thought the coach had qualified for the tournament and these people had not). Some of these even started to pretend to coach other students and often left them very confused and poorly trained.

Some people worked eagerly with the coach for a while, then when they reached a difficult part of the training gave up and went to join those sitting on the benches.

Some people eagerly accepted their training; but as they learned they began to pick on other students who hadn't learned the same things. One student might have learned from the coach to get better as tumbling; but then they picked on the students with whom the coach had been working on balance and who therefore had not been training in tumbling yet.

Finally there were those who joined the school and just focused on doing what the coach said. They encouraged the other students; but never tried to coach them or pick on them for their weaknesses. They were the ones who got the best scores at the tournament because all of their energy was focused on what the coach was teaching them.

Posted by Steven at 08:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

October 14, 2005

Introspection , Thoughts : Challenge vs. Adapt

We all face problems in our lives, some large, some small. Whether it is an unjust law, or a rude waiter, there are two broad approaches to addressing any problem – you can challenge the problem to try and make it go away, or you can adapt to the problem and find someway to get what you want within the limitations of the situation. It all comes down to who is going to change, the individual or the situation.

Neither approach is "right". There are situations in life that call out for change. These are often problems that effect many people and therefore expecting the people to all change is unreasonable. On the other hand there are situations that call out for individuals to adapt – whether it is because the situation can not be changed (for instance individuals learning to adapt to disabilities) or where the current situation is only a problem for a few and changing to accommodate them will discomfort a much greater number. Of course, most real problems fall in between – where the proper resolution isn't obvious and it is up to us as individuals to make a judgment call whether to fight the situation or adapt to it.

There have been social trends which bias people towards one solution or another. In the 60's and early 70's, the bias was to challenge – to fix the things that were broken in the world, whether they be big (prejudice, poverty) or small (dress codes, hair styles). In the late 70's and 80's, the bias was towards adaptation - self-improvement and learning how to use "the system" to one's advantage. I'm not entirely sure where the bias is today; but given the tendency for people to blame others for their problems, I think we may be back to a preference to challenge rather than adapt.

As an engineer, my personal bias has always been towards adapting. Engineering is all about being told "You have 8 rubber bands, 10 sheets of paper, 6 tooth picks, 3 feet of string, and an egg. Now build something that will let you drop the egg without cracking". When an engineer is presented with such a problem they know asking for a sheet of foam rubber is not an option. Engineering is all about dealing with constraints – even if the only constraints are time or money. The first step in any engineering problem is understanding what you have to work with, and then you figure out how to solve the problem with what you have. Occasionally you can get away with challenging the constraints you are given; but an engineer who does that too often is not respected. Real respect comes from solving a problem under constraints that everyone else thinks are impossible.

My observation is that spending years being paid to find ways to adapt to constraints at work has inevitably had an effect on my personal life. When I run into problems, my first reaction is to find some way to work around them – to take the limitations presented to me as a given and then find a way to get what I want despise those limitations. The idea of challenging the rules, asking other people to change, comes slowly to me, if at all. If someone's a jerk, I assume they will always be a jerk and find a way to work around them. The idea of complaining about them doesn't occur to me.

I'm not saying this is right – there are almost certainly times when I should be challenging my environment instead of adapting to it. My comment is only that I think I have come to understand where my personal bias comes from. It's an "engineer thing".

Posted by Steven at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 15, 2005

Movies : "... merely wires and lights in a box"

I just saw the movie "Good night, and good luck" about when newsman Edward R. Murrow took on Senator Joseph McCarthy. It is both artistically excellent and thought provoking - a triumph in both style and substance. The movie also provides a glimpse back into a world which would seem quite foreign to most people today (imagine a news anchor smoking while delivering the news on TV).

I'm not so interesting in commenting now (as I am sure many others will after seeing the film) about McCarthyism and our present age; although I will propose an interesting exercise while watching the film – simply replace in your mind the word "terrorist" for "communist" every time it is spoken and see if the movies plays any differently for you. For those who find your sympathies changed by such an exercise, I suggest you have some thinking to do.

I don't want to focus on that aspect because in the end, I don't think the movie is actually about McCarthyism, then or now. I believe the movie is in fact about television journalism. What it can be, what it was, and what it has become. The movie is bracketed by the speech which Murrow gave to the Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) in October 1958 (the full text of the speech can be found here), which served as a challenge to the industry which even then was guilty of pandering to the public, sponsors, and special interests. The words should serve as a rebuke to the modern television news industry, and a reminder of how far it has fallen from the days of Edward R. Murrow.

That's what the movie is about – a time and place when even though no one was willing to sponsor a TV news show because it was too controversial, even when people were threatened with having their lives ruined for reporting the truth, news people still chose (without interference from their network) to present the facts to the public, come what may.

It is also important to realize that in this day and age where much of what passes for television journalism is in fact editorialization in a thin disguise, it is important to look back at how men like Murrow, even when expressing opinions, acknowledged other points of view. In his "Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy" (around which the movie is built), Murrow starts with the offer " If the Senator believes we have done violence to his words or pictures and desires to speak, to answer himself, an opportunity will be afforded him on this program"; and closes with " This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve". When McCarthy took up Murrow on his offer to rebut the program, Murrow allowed him to speak his mind without interruption or counter argument on that show – giving him the fairest opportunity possible to defend himself (on the subsequent show, Murrow countered the accusations which the senator had made against him personally; but let the rest of the senator's words speak for themselves.)

The real message of the film was put better by Murrow himself in the conclusion of his RTNDA speech (only partially quoted in the film):

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Posted by Steven at 07:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 16, 2005

Introspection : Spinning the engine back up

Well, I seem to have caught my muse again.

For the last couple of months, I have had no shortage of topics I wanted to blog on, nor a lack of motivation to write; but too often I would sit down, get a paragraph or two in, and then hit the wall – the words would simply not come. At one point I had seven incomplete blog entries sitting on my desktop which I simply could not find the words to complete (I'd even sit down and try again at each one of them, with no effect).

I think however that I now understand the phenomena.

Back when I started this blog, we were in the design phase of projects at work, which is to say I was spending most of my day either writing or reading documents. That meant I had that part of my brain that dealt with English language "spun up" and working at speed, so when I came home, finding the words to express my ideas came easy. Projects at work progressed into development , which meant during the day I started dealing more with computer code and less with English; but my blog writing in the evening was enough to keep the "English engine" in my head working.

Then a couple of things occurred over the summer which disrupted my blogging, and I got out of the habit of writing regularly. Without that habit, it was like the engine spun down, and the words no longer came naturally. What got me out of it was a combination of having a couple of documents to write at work and simply forcing myself to sit down and write something, anything, even if it wasn't publishable.

The lesson of course is one I should have known – the most important thing for any writer to do is to write. Actually, most of the successful writers I have spoken to all agree that the top three things a writer must do to become a better writer is:

1. write
2. write more
3. keep writing

While it is not true of all skills, people do get better at writing just by practice; and as I experienced recently, they tend to atrophy with the lack of practice.

By the way, those successful authors who go beyond the top three things usually follow up by saying the next more important things a writer must do to become a better writer are:

4. read the kind of things you want to write
5. read more of the kind of things you want to write
6. keep reading the kind of things you want to write

Exposure to good writing is the other way to improve. Simply seeing the many different ways people approach written communication (whether it is essays, fiction, poetry) gives you tools you can use when you write.

To those I would add my own modest recommendations:

7. read books about writing from authors whose works you like (avoiding any book on writing whose author you don't recognize, or worse, who has only published books on writing)
8. find occasions to meet and talk to authors you like
9. read things other than the kind of thing you want to write (borrowing techniques from other genres can be very powerful)

Posted by Steven at 05:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 17, 2005

Thoughts : Genius and Madness

This year, the book which has been most successful at keeping me thinking long after I finished reading it is definitely Jeff Hawkins' "On Intelligence". See here for my previous review.

The essence of Hawkins' theory is that the human brain is a very specific kind of pattern matching engine, and that all that we think of as "intelligence" is a byproduct of exactly how the brain goes about that task. An overly simplified version of his model is that the arrangement of cells in the brain is design to express things like "an X is an A and a B, followed by a C and a D", where A, B, C, D, and X can be anything - visual elements, sequences of sounds, abstract ideas, etc. The elegance of Hawkins' theory is that the same basic mechanism can be used for so many purposes.

A key piece of Hawkins' theory is that information flows both up and down the hierarchy of pattern matchers. In the abstract example above, the cells that identify "A's" signal up to the cells that represent "X is A+B then C+D". Those cells then signal down that they are expecting a "B". Now if there is no B, then nothing happens; but if the cells responsible for identifying "B's" had partially identified a "B", then the extra nudge from on-high that a "B" was expected might be enough to put the decision over the threshold to signal a "B". Then the "X" cells would signal down that they were now looking for a "C" and "D", and so on.

The point here is that the bidirectional communication allows for fuzzy matches - your brain might identify the first three notes of Beethoven's 5th Symphony; but the 4th note is slightly out of tune, yet you still hear the Symphony because the higher level pattern convinced the lower level pattern that the sound was a match even though it really wasn't.

To give a more complex example: I am a software engineer, so I have patterns in my head for algorithms like "binary search tree" and "hash table". I look at a problem and I see "this is the kind of problem that should be solved with a hash table." According to Hawkins this happens because I have cells in my head that represent the idea of "hash table" that match some set of complex criteria of characteristics of problems to be solved (represented by other cells). If I am a good engineer, those criteria will only trigger the "hash table" symbol if it is in fact the right solution. That process is however a negotiation between the levels of abstraction in my brain where the "hash table" symbol is constantly trying to encourage or discourage the lower level interpretation of things, depending on how well other parts of the puzzle match.

This fuzzy matching, according to Hawkins, is where most of what we think of as genius and creativity come from. Genius (in simple terms) is the ability to match patterns that to other people seem unrelated. To look at nature and see a solution to a software problem. To look at a boat on a curved river and see the solution to a mathematics problem. To look at a fisherman and see the solution to a philosophical problem. Those are the things that we call genius. In Hawkins' theory, this implies the ability to match patterns despite the imperfections in the stimulus - that the higher level pattern was able to convince the lower level patterns to signal match despite the fact that biology is not computer science, that rivers are not formula, and that fish are not emotions.

Which brings us at last to madness. We talk about people with various mental illnesses as seeing or hearing things that "aren't there". How might that occur if Hawkins' theory is correct? One possibility is that these people's illnesses at a biological level cause high level patterns to be more aggressive at signaling down (which, as I understand the theory, is possible since the cells that signal down use different neurotransmitters). In the example above, imagine if the "Beethoven's 5th Symphony" pattern started to signal down that it was expecting that 4th note even when the first three were not clearly signaled. The person might "hear" the symphony when in fact all that was coming in the ears was random noise. Their brains might well be matching patterns based on unrelated data.

But isn't that also what genius is? People have talked for ages about the fine line that separates genius and madness. Hawkins may well have proposed a theory that explains the connection. The only difference between a genius and madman is that the strange analogies generated by the brains of geniuses are useful, while those of a madman are not.

Posted by Steven at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 19, 2005

Allegories , Faith : Two soldiers

Consider the case of two soldiers.

One is a great athlete, physically fit, able to run all day with a heavy pack. He is also a crack shot and an expert in hand-to-hand combat. All of the skills used by soldiers he has in abundance, with one exception - he doesn't listen to his commanding officer. This soldier guards what he thinks should be guarded, marches to where he thinks he should march, and fights those enemies he thinks should be fought, regardless of what orders he is given.

The other soldier is a more average individual. He is in average physical shape, an average shot, an average fighter. He is entirely without note, with one exception - he does (to the best of his ability) what he is ordered to do. He guards what he is told to guard, he marches where he is told to march, and he attacks those enemies he is told to attack.

My question is - when there is an important mission to be done, which soldier will be sent? The one who does what he is told, of course. The other might well be better able to accomplish the mission; but how could you ever know if they would do it?

And so it is with the Kingdom of God.

We tend to think God uses those who more righteous than others, those who have achieved some significant level of maturity in Christ; but that is not the case. The simple truth is, God uses those who allow themselves to be used, regardless of their skills or righteousness. The Bible is full of stories of flawed individuals used by God, and in fact finding a major character whose narrative does not contain some story of moral failure is difficult. God is not looking for people who have their acts together to serve him. He is simply looking for people who when he calls their name respond with "Here am I" as Abraham, Jacob, Samuel and many others did.

There are two lessons to take from this.

First, when we look at a big church or a successful ministry, we tend to think "The leader of that ministry must be a holy man (or woman), they must be righteous for God to use them like that." Then when, inevitably, the individual's moral failings become evident we turn our backs on the ministry, or worse, on God. Yet our disappointment is founded on a false assumption - that the individual was used because of their morality when in fact the reason they were used is simply that they responded when God called them. God may well have asked many people to create that ministry; but most of them, even ones who might have been more skilled or more moral, ignored him; so God used the one who answered his call, despite that person's faults.

I'm reminded of the joke about the man who was on a busy highway where everyone was speeding. Suddenly he sees the flashing lights of a police car behind him, and so he pulls over. As the officer is writing him a ticket for speeding, the man complains "Why are you writing me a ticket when everyone else is speeding too?" to which the police officer responds "Because you were the one who pulled over."

The second lesson to take from this is that we often look at ourselves and our own faults and say "God can not use me, I am too messed up. Given me a chance to get my life in order and then I'll serve God." Again, this is built on a false assumption that we need to have our acts together to be used by God, when in fact it is clear from the Bible this is not true. All God wants in a servant is someone who is willing to answer his call. God does care a lot about morality (just as the army would care a lot about helping the obedient soldier become a better aim or more fit); but it is not a prerequisite for service - more often it comes as a consequence of it.

Posted by Steven at 05:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 20, 2005

Observations : Freedom and Equality

I don't think there will be much debate were I to state that Freedom and Equality are two of the fundamental doctrines of that civil religion that is Americanism. They are principles that guide our civic discourse as much as Faith and Love guide the discourse among Christians. What may however provoke a reaction is my observation that these doctrines serve very different roles within the American society.

Freedom is that principle that we love to talk about. It is the concept we are most proud of and tell others of our freedoms at every opportunity. It is the cause for which we claim we to go to war. Freedom is the doctrine which we most want people to associate with being American. However, I claim that for all we as Americans like to talk about freedom, it is actually not the issue which motivates us as a nation.

Equality on the other hand is the cause for which Americans as a people will act with passion. The idea that some people are being given unfair advantage or are being singled out for disadvantage vs. other people is something which shakes our national hornets' nest. Whether it be civil rights for minorities, equal rights for women, or the oppression of some minority in a foreign country, equality is the banner to which we will flock enthusiastically.

We accept with minor grumbling if we are searched and prodded as we travel; as long as we all suffer the same indignities. But suggest that individuals are singled out because of their background and we object. We are complacent in dealing with countries that oppress their people, as long as everyone is oppressed equally; but show that some minority is being treated worse than others and we will take up arms. We love free enterprise, right up until someone's wealth gives them an advantage in court or politics.

I acknowledge that we as a nation we do prefer freedom, and all other things being equal (and I use that phrase intentionally) we try to preserve and establish it. I further acknowledge that there is a minority of Americans who are passionate about their defense of freedom. I merely observe that freedom alone (without the hint of inequality) has rarely served to capture the public imagination the way causes of inequality have.

Some may suggest that this is a new phenomenon – that we would not have had the civil rights movements in our memory if America had always been thus. To answer that, I simply provide a couple of quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" (published in 1835). In both quotes he is talking about "Anglo-America society"

I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will put up with poverty, servitude and barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy.

and

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if, they miss their aim, resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them without equality, and they would rather perish than loose it.

Someday I need to do a blog on de Tocqueville.

Posted by Steven at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 22, 2005

Observations : Defective thinking

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Crystallographic Defects and noticed some interesting parallels with the kinds of flaws people develop in their thinking. Nothing deep here, just an interesting (to me at least) way of looking at things.

One class of defects which crystals develop are voids, where there is space that the crystal has simply not filled in. We likewise have voids in our understanding of the world – opinions we have not yet formed. Some of these are trivial and can be ignored (after all, we only have so much time); but others may be important issue which we should form opinions on.

Another class of defects are "point defects" – small isolated errors in the crystal matrix. For instance when a stray atom of sulfur or silicon gets incorporated into the carbon matrix of a diamond. We too tend to accumulate small isolated errors in our thinking. Consider a man who is otherwise rational in his behavior; but gets nervous when asked to sit in row 13 or take room 13 in a motel. An isolated contamination of superstition has found its way into his view of the world. The good news is that such minor errors are often easy to remove from people's thinking.

Yet another class of crystal defects a line defects. These are places where a small error has been propagated down of whole row of atoms within an otherwise well-formed crystal. A normal crystal might have one row of molecules connect with another row of molecules directly across from it; but in a line defect those molecules might have been bent out of shape and instead connected with molecules diagonally across. These are essentially flaws within the structure of the crystal itself. We too often find ourselves with flaws in out thinking on some subject. We might for instance form some perfectly logical opinions on politics only to discover an inconsistency in our logic where we used one standard in one case and a different standard in another. To line things up, we must choose a single standard and apply it to all situations.

A final class of crystal defects a planar defects. These commonly occur when two crystals begin growing separately at slightly different angles and then meet. Such misaligned crystals never solidly connect and will always serve as a weakness in the overall structure. People likewise have a tendency to compartmentalize their thinking – forming collections of opinions that are specific to a context or subject matter but are separate in their minds from their thinking in another context or subject. A person might have one set of moral principles at home and another at work. Both may be logical and internally consistent; but not consistent with each other. A person may have a well though out set of political views and a well thought out set of religion views. Each, again, may be internally consistent; but are in fact inconsistent with each other. These are the hardest kinds of problems for people to deal with in their lives – both because the compartmentalization makes them easy to ignore and because fixing them often means making significant changes in their views on some subject.

I will admit I have had to face each of these in my own life. Thankfully, I have only faced "planar defects" in my thinking only three times that I can recall – the results were traumatic enough that I do recall each vividly. One of the things I have committed to myself is to face such issues head-on and not to hide from them.

Posted by Steven at 07:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 23, 2005

Faith : Faith is not blind

You often here people talk about "blind faith". I have a problem with that when it gets applied to Christianity. In my experience, Christian faith is not blind.

I'll start with the observation that the phrase "blind faith" does not appear in the Bible. The closest statement is Second Corinthians 5:7 where it says "We walk by faith, not by sight". However if you look around that verse it is clear from context that it is talking about our inability to see what will happen to us after we die – that we only have faith to tell us that. But faith in what? The answer of course is faith in God, and that is where the blinders come off.

If I was having car problems, and someone at work who I trusted suggested a mechanic, would it be "blind faith" to take my car to that mechanic? Of course not. While there is some risk that my co-worker's evaluation of that mechanic is wrong, my faith in his recommendation is based on my experience with his judgment and character. If a different co-worker were to make a recommendation, I might trust it less – either because my experience with that person has shown them to have poor judgment, or simply because I don't know the individual well enough to know if I should trust them.

In the same way, I do not think a Christian's faith is meant to be blind. It is meant to be built on our experience with the character of God based on our relationship with him. It is commonly said in Christian circles that "Christianity is not about religion – it's about relationship". I subscribe to that thesis completely.

It is true that when I made my original decision to follow Christ 36 years ago, I didn't know him well – all I had was a sense of the rightness of things. But then again, the risks I took at that point were minimal – if I judged things wrong, there would have been no great loss. That first step of faith may well have been nearly blind, but it was also a very small step.

Since then what I have discovered that the nature of the Christian walk is taking alternating steps – God first gives us a chance to get to know him better – building a relationship with us. Then he asks us to use the trust we developed in that relationship to take action. God never asks a Christian to do something that goes beyond the degree of relationship that has been developed; but God also does not continue to develop the relationship until the Christian shows a willingness to trust the relationship as it exists. The result is that a mature Christian may well have a great deal of faith in God; but that faith is not blind – it is firmly built on the accumulated experience of the character and power of God.

Alternatively, many Christians remain stunted in their faith – sometimes never having progressed beyond that first blind step. One reason may be that they have never actually sought a relationship with God, or have stopped developing the relationship for some reason. Without increasing relationship, there is no basis for increasing faith, and so things stop where they are. Another reason would be if the individual was unwilling to act on whatever limited understanding of God's nature they had developed – that God had shown himself trustworthy, and then asked the person to act on that trust and the person failed to do so. Once someone says to God by their actions (or lack thereof) "I don't trust you", that puts a limit on further growth in the relationship.

Either way, I believe God is very interested in developing relationships with people where they can have faith that is not blind; but built on the person knowing and trusting God. That, to me, is what Christianity is all about.

Posted by Steven at 04:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

October 24, 2005

Books : In praise of "Democracy in America"

For as far back as I can recall paying attention to politicians and pundits (which, alas, is quite a long time), I recall them quoting "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville. I had no idea what the book was; but the quotes sounded good and I thought I should eventually get around to reading it. A few years back (after 25 or so years of not getting around to it), I heard two different people, within the period of a day, quoting from the book to support their positions. What caught my attention was not the quotes (which were eloquent as usual); but that the positions being taken were in fact diametrically opposite positions on the same issue. That was the last straw that finally got me to buy and read the book – I had to know what it actually said as opposed to how people were quoting it.

I am so glad I did – my only regret was that I had not done so sooner.

My first surprise was to discover that the book from which I had heard so many quotes that were completely relevant to modern America, was in fact written by a Frenchman in the 1835 – nearly two hundred years ago. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French aristocrat and lawyer who served as a minor judge under the constitutional monarchy that came into power in the "July Revolution". In 1831, he was given authorization to travel to America, officially to collect information on the America penal system; but based on de Tocqueville's assorted writing (including the journal he kept on his trip) this was really just a pretext. The real reason de Tocqueville wanted to tour America is that he and his parents had seen democracy fail the first few times it was tried and France, and he was determined to figure out why it seemed to be working in America.

The result of his eighteen months of research is a book which, 175 years on, is still (in my opinion at least) the most comprehensive and accurate description of what America is that has ever been written. I read a great many books on history, politics, sociology, and "Americanism"; many of which I recommend on a frequent basis; but not one book I have ever read comes close to "Democracy In America" for its insight into either democracy or America. There is a very short list of books I consider "must reads". This is one of those few.

The book describes what America is, why it became that way, and how it is likely to evolve in the (then) future. The two things that make the book special is first the care with which he delves into the root causes of many aspects of American Culture – trying to determine why we turned out the way we did. One outcome of this is that de Tocqueville's original reason for coming to America turned out to be a failure. His conclusion is that America's culture of democracy was a result of unique factors in the colonization of this nation, which would be impossible to reproduce in France and that if France was ever to establish a stable democracy, it would need to invent its own European democratic culture.

Second, while de Tocqueville clearly admired America, he was not at all blind to our faults, and spends a great deal of time in the book describing the issues which he expected to plague our society. It is the accuracy of these predictions that misled me into thinking that it was a more modern book. He predicted tabloid journalism, sound-bite politics. He predicted that in the end we would be ruled not by wise men; but by those who could best inflame our passions. Reading Democracy in America more often felt like reading the morning paper than a two hundred year old treatise. He also occasionally got things wrong; but even the things he did not foresee are interesting to note.

A few suggestions to those who I have convinced to read the book. First the original is written in French (and fairly advanced French at that), so I suspect most people who read my blog will have to resort to a translation. I read the Lawrence/Mayer edition and was pleased with it. Second, by all means make sure you get an unabridged copy. It may be 750 pages total; but from what I have seen, those who edit abridged copies almost always have some agenda to what parts they include and what they omit. If you are going to read it, read the whole thing.

Posted by Steven at 05:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 25, 2005

Life : Blog vs book

I was looking at the backup file for this blog today and did a small experiment. I striped off all the descriptive information used by the program as well as all of the comments, leaving only the text I had written for the blogs. I then poured that into Word with fairly standard book-submission settings. Based on that, in the last 8 month I have written the equivalent of a 155 page book. Unfortunately, I'm no Wil Wheaton. Wil has published two books ("Just a Geek" and "Dancing Barefoot") which are largely collections of entries from his blog (worth reading, too!)

Posted by Steven at 06:15 PM | Permalink

Observations : Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

I remember watching an interview with George Burns (the vaudevillian, comedian, actor – for those too young to know) shortly before he died in 1996 at the age 100. What struck me most were his observations on how much the word had changed in his lifetime. He was born in 1896, 7 years before the Wright brothers' first flight, and lived to not only see man land on the moon, but for space flight to become uninteresting to most people.

I think on occasion what changes my life will span. I am, I hope, no more than half-way through my life, and I have already seen so much.

When I was born, telephones had rotary dials. They were physically wired to a network that was run by a national monopoly that not only owned the network; but owned the actual phones (which you paid rent on). Now I own my wireless phone, which is small enough to keep in my pocket and has a keypad on which I can enter no only numbers but text messages. To use it, I pay a nominal fee to one of many companies competing for my patronage.

When I was born, television was in black and white. Televisions were great hulking beasts which could be used to watch one of 6 channels (and that was a lot of options – we lived near New York City); but only if the weather was good and the antenna on your roof was lined up right. Now televisions have flat panel screens and hundreds of channels are made available over cable; and if I don't feel like watching a show when it is broadcast, I can save it on a hard disk to view later.

When I was born, computers filled rooms and were owned by governments, universities and corporations. Now there are computers in toasters and coffee machines (some of which are more powerful than those that used to fill rooms).

When I was born, it had only been three years since Crick and Watson had discovered the structure of DNA. Diseases were described largely in terms of symptoms. Now we have mapped the human genome and are in the process of mapping the proteome. More and more diseases are described in terms of molecular interactions and treatments are being created to target those reactions directly.

When I was born, most people never met anyone outside of the town in which they were born. Now, thanks to the internet, people have friends around the world.

When I was born, racial bigotry was considered normal and homosexuality was so shameful that it wasn't spoken of. Now bigotry is shameful and homosexuality is becoming a source of pride.

When I was born, two superpowers held the world hostage under threat of annihilation if either did not get its way. Now small groups of religious fanatics threaten to achieve the same dishonor.

Half a life down. Half (or more?) to go.

What changes have I yet to see?

Posted by Steven at 06:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 26, 2005

Thoughts : The Cardinal Virtues of Science

While professionally I am an engineer, I've always liked to think of myself as a scientist. One reason I desire that moniker is that I consider science (in its pure, abstract form at least), to be a noble calling, worthy of honor and respect, guided by virtues which I strive to build in myself - humility and openness

I claim the core of true science is humility.

Science is all about questions - asking questions yourself and allowing others to ask questions of you. Science never assumes that things are beyond inquisition - it recognizes that there is always the possibility of error; and that the only way to reduce that possibility is to allow free and open discussion. Newton's theories of motion had passed centuries of scrutiny so that we were willing to start calling them laws; but we kept asking questions and eventually discovered problems that led to Einstein's theory of relativity.

The simplest raw form of the "scientific method" is to say "I think this is true - can anyone confirm of deny it?" Papers must pass peer review before being published. To be a true scientist is to be humble - willing to be challenged, questioned, tested; and most important, willing to be shown to be wrong. To be a true scientist, one must be humble

True science is also about openness.

To be questioned is to be exposed. A scientist must be willing to let all their data "hang out" for everyone to see. Errors can often be hidden in the most unlikely of places, and so it is incumbent on scientists to allow others to dig into every nook and cranny of their thinking, looking for the hidden assumption on which their theory or experiment was built. To conceal data, particularly data which might mitigate your claims is the great sin in science. Being wrong is not an issue - it is expected - but hiding even a hint that you may be wrong is a capital offense.

These are virtues to be extolled not just in the lab or lecture hall; but also in life. We should all strive for this kind of humility, this kind of openness.

Of course, all of this is an ideal. Real science is conducted by real people with all those faults that are common to humanity - pride, bias, anger, fear, and so on. There is a lot of bad science out there, driven by pride, secrecy, dogma (whether it be religious, political, or otherwise). The best we can all do is keep asking the questions, whether they are welcome or not.

Posted by Steven at 05:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 27, 2005

Thoughts : The limits of Science

In 1931 Kurt Gödel proposed his incomplete theorems. In essence he proved that there can be no consistent axiomatic system of logic that can prove all things which are true. Any such system of proof with either have some true statements which it can not prove to be true or it will incorrectly identify some false statements to be true. For the layperson, what this means is that it is provable that not everything is provable by pure logic.

Now I recognize that Gödel's methodology can not be applied to non-axiomatic systems such as "the scientific method"; but I remain convinced in my own mind that the concept applies. I believe that there are things which are true in the universe which can not be proven to be true using the scientific method (or any such method of proof). I'm not talking about technological limits where we physically can't perform the test; but conceptually there are true things which can simply not be reached using such a methodology.

The question is what to do about that.

First, I am sure there are some who would dispute the point - who would say that in fact there is no truth in the universe which can not be proven by science. As I do not have the equivalent of Gödel's proof to make my case, there is little I can say in response beyond the fact that, technically speaking, science can rarely "prove" anything with absolute certainty (as can be done with axiomatic logic) - in most cases there always remains some chance that some edge case will eventually be discovered where a theory falls down. Most of the time science simply takes 99.99% certainty and call it "proven" out of convenience.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that some thing can not be proven; but recommend the philosophy that we should all act as if all unproven statements were false. The motivation is that since some of those un-provable statements are in fact false, the safest assumption for everyone to assume that they all are. This is a consistent and logical philosophy, and I can understand anyone who chooses to adopt it; but in essence this is saying we should not take risks in life because we may fail. My personal opinion is that much of the joy in life comes when we are willing to take risks, and that a philosophy which says "avoid the possibility of being wrong" will often avoid happiness as well.

Third, while I have never heard anyone advocate it as a position, I have certainly seen people who act as if they believe that all propositions are true until proven false, and therefore act as if the unproven is true. They swallow every theory they hear under the guise that "you can't prove it wrong". This is in my opinion a foolish stance if for no other reason that much of what has resisted scientific proof is mutually contradictory - simple logic can show that not all if it can be true. To accept ideas with no critical thought guarantees some of what you believe is wrong.

Finally, I believe there is a middle way - for each of us, when science is unable to settle a matter to our satisfaction, to use our own best (and logical) judgment and decide, however imperfectly, which propositions are true. Doing this we must accept the risk that we will be wrong some of the time; but do so hoping that this risk will bring things into our lives that will enrich us.

In this process we can be guided by the principles of science even if we are not allowing ourselves to be absolutely ruled by them. While science may not be able to provide objective proof for all to see, we can at least seek our own subjective proofs based on our experience. We can ask ourselves: Is what I believe logically consistent? Are there other explanations I should consider? Where might the flaws in my evaluation lay? To delve into the realm of the unproven we need not abandon science, merely recognize its limits.

Posted by Steven at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

October 28, 2005

Web : And now for something...

I realize my blog has been a bit weighty of late, so I thought I would offer up a few light confections to cleanse the palate today.

1. JibJab is the home of excellent satirical movies. While many of their movies require payment, some of the best remain available for free: Their latest "Big Box Mart" is among those.

2. Those of you who are fans of Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, I strongly recommend subscribing to the "Dogbert's New Ruling Class" monthly newsletter. While some portion of each issues is dedicated to shameless promotion of Scott Adams' latest venture, and I have never found the "Ask Dogbert" column to be particularly amusing, the " InDUHvidual Quotes" and "True Tales of InDUHviduals" is always good for some humor therapy. These are quotes and stories people send in to Adams related to people who clearly don't have a clue. A sample:

My husband is a police officer and was training some of his guys at the shooting range. They were hanging the paper targets when one guy said, "Hey, why don't we hang 3 at a time and just tear the top one off each time, that way we don't have to keep hanging them.

In addition, the latest issue contains the announcement that Scott Adams has started a blog, which contains, among other things, the stories behind some of his comics. Adams' description within the newsletter of why people blog is also well worth reading.

3. And while we are on the subject of quotes that make people sound clueless (I'll leave it to other to comment if that perception is correct). Here's a bit of satire that attempts to explain some of our current president's verbal gaffs.

4. Finally, for that half-dozen people in the world who are fans of both the Peanuts cartoon and the horror stories of H. P. Lovecraft, this story is a must-read.

Posted by Steven at 08:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 29, 2005

Thoughts : Where has the beauty of language gone?

I am not an ardent grammarian who measures the decline in language in double negatives and split infinitives. I have always believed that a language is what is spoken and understood, regardless of what those who sit in academic halls and national institutes may say. Language is the ultimate cultural artifact and is therefore the subject of constant evolution. Most people would be amazed at the elements of modern English which were considered scandalous degradations of the language in their day. So please do not mistake my meaning when I complain of decline of language, and think I am disturbed by mere rules being broken. My concern goes much deeper.

To me language is like a song, composed of both words and music, meaning and melody, one directed to the mind and the other to the heart; and if fitted together well, the combination communicates far more than either alone. But music is not required to accomplish this. Words, both spoken and written, have clear meaning which can be used to covey ideas; but language can be more than just meaning. There is meter, repetition, and rhymes of diverse kinds. There is cadence, alliteration, and patterns both overt and subtle. Words can be made to carry the reader gently along, or build to a climax that demands to be read. These tools are not part of the literal meaning of the text; but seduce us into becoming involved in what is being said – they provide a form of music that draws our hearts into the conversation.

It is a kind music I hear less and less often.

Consider the following statements:

"We have decided to go to the moon and more, because the difficulty of the challenge and the act of commitment will inspire us to excel".

Or

"The soldiers who fought here have already honored this location more than our speeches will."

The meanings of these statements are significant, and one could imagine people talking about the ideas expressed by them afterwards; but the words themselves are dead stones. I think most people, when talking about the subject, would simply rephrase such thoughts in their own words rather than taking the effort to quote these.

Now consider:

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

Or

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

I acknowledge that these statements might well become lost in the flood of words that each of us face each day; but they do communicate something that goes beyond the literal meaning of the sentences – something that touches us in ways that the first versions did not, something which would make our own rephrasing of these ideas appear as poor imitations in their shadow, something that calls out to repeat not just the ideas; but the words themselves, something which is missing from public discourse these days.

I have no illusions that quotable speech was common in years past. I am aware that before Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address, the great orator Edward Everett spoke for two hours and yet the world has little noted nor long remembered what Everett said. Yet outside of fiction, no one seems to care these days how things are said, only what is said; and thus the beauty of language is lost. I fear that Martin Luther King Jr. may prove to be America's last great orator, for I have seen no one today who even cares to pick up that mantle from where it fell, much less put it on.

I see this issue not just in politics and public speaking; but also in writing. There are books from the past which have become classics not just because their ideas were great; but because the way the ideas were expressed were equally as great. But where are such books now? Who (outside of fiction) is writing quotable books today? There is, as I have alluded to, those who write fiction who keep alive the flame of the beauty of language; but those who write non-fiction seem only to be concerned with getting their facts right.

I think this change has come about because we as a people no longer seek the beauty of language, no longer demand it. We have grown distrustful of eloquence, fearing that it serves as a mask for people's motives; but in that fear we have lost the ability to be moved by words, to be drawn skyward by phrases that ennoble us.

Because of our distrust of language, we have failed to renew the bonds of words which hold us together; bonds which must be re-forged in each generation. We may hold certain ideals in common; but as we change, we must find new ways to express those ideals – common phrases that tie us not to the past; but to each other.

While all this concerns me, I don't know what can be done. For my part I practice my craft - writing, and studying what has been written to understand its beauty – and I encourage others to look for the beauty in words.

Posted by Steven at 04:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 31, 2005

Books : "Nobody's Son" by Sean Stewart

One of the panels I attended at the 2004 WorldCon was on the subject of "things we hope never to see again in any fantasy or science fiction story" – essentially what characters, plot elements, settings, etc. have been overdone. In the course of the conversation, the panelists not only talked about the tired motifs of fiction; but also mentioned a few books which they felt "got it right" – books which managed to breathe new life into old ideas. One of those that were mentioned more than once was "Nobody's Son" by Sean Stewart. It took me a while to find a copy (it had been out of print, and being labeled a "young adult" title, I didn't want to buy it without a chance to look inside first); and then it languished in my reading queue for a few months; but I finally got around to reading it this past week.

A classic form of fairy tale is: Some evil (dragon, giant, ghost, etc.) threatens a kingdom. The king puts out a decree that the individual who can defeat this threat will win some prize (the princess, half the kingdom, etc.). Many brave knights try and fail; but them some plucky commoner prevails using wit and common sense. The commoner wins the prize and, as the saying goes "lives happily ever after". This is essentially the story told in chapter one of "Nobody's Son", with the exception that the rest of the book is about how he did not in fact live "happily ever after". His princess/bride was not what he expected (among other thing, denying him access to her bed), the nobles scheme against him out of envy and pride, and as it turns out side effects of his victory may prove to be worse than the original problem.

What however surprised me was not how this book turned a classic pattern around, or that it was an entertaining book; but that it actually had something to say in the midst of the story. There's a definite theme there about the relationships between fathers and their children, particularly their sons. The title is not just a reference to how the king's court views the hero (son of a commoner, a "nobody"); but also to the fact that the hero's father had abandoned his family when the hero was a child, and so he had "nobody" as a father. While I wouldn't consider the insights in the book to be "deep"; that they were there at all was a pleasant surprise.

"Nobody's Son" isn't a "must read", but I can recommend it as "good read".

Posted by Steven at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)