Monthy Archive: September 2006
« August 2006 | Main | January 2007 »

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.

September 04, 2006

Faith : What the Church Can Learn From Fandom

My apologies in advance for the rather long prologue to this essay. There's a lot I need to explain to get set up the points I want to make, although I suspect many of my points will become apparent quite early.

A couple weeks ago I attended the 64th Annual World Science Fiction Convention (WorldCon). Whenever I tell people I am going to a WorldCon, I find the need to explain that it is probably unlike what comes to their mind when someone says "Science Fiction Convention" (or "Con'" in the lingo).

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of "Science Fiction Conventions". The first are Conventions which are put on by businesses, often on a for-profit basis. These Con's are all about putting on a show which will draw the largest audience possible. In order to bring the maximum number of people in, they often hire celebrities from mass media SciFi entertainment – usually actors from TV shows – to headline the show. To maximize the perceived value of the experience, they promote these stars and the opportunity to see them, raising them up on pedestals (and distancing them from the audience - after all who would pay to see someone "just like them").

Many of these conventions are focused on a single TV show or movie ("Star Trek Conventions", "Star Wars Conventions"), and attract people who are very focused on that one subject, resulting in a very homogeneous audience.

Some companies who run SciFi Con's are quite mercenary, trying to make as much money as they can from not only those who attend; but anyone else involved as well (celebrities, vendors, etc.) Others are run by individuals who are fans of SciFi and simply want to put on the best show they can to entertain everyone; but the nature of the convention itself is pretty much the same.

I went to a few of these kinds of conventions when I was young, and was so turned off that it took some persuading to get me to attend my first WorldCon when it was held just down the street.

The other kind of Con's are those which are run by the fans themselves on a non-profit basis. WorldCon is the classic (and oldest) example. To understand this phenomenon you have to go back to the 1920s when Hugo Gernsback was publishing Amazing Stories (the magazine credited with creating the modern genre of Science Fiction). Subscribers would often write letters to the magazine commenting about individual stories, and Hugo would publish the letters complete with the address of the sender. The result was that not only did Amazing Stories establish the category SciFi; but it also served as a clearing house for fans of the genre getting in touch with each other. Soon (in the 1930's) fans were producing their own amateur fan magazines ("fanzines") to talk about their favorite books and stories and to publish their own attempts at writing. Thus a community was born.

In 1939, a group of fans decided that it would be great if they could meet face to face as oppose to just exchanging mail and thus WorldCon (and the fan run Con's in general) came into existence. The purpose of these Con's was not to put on a good show; but to give a chance for the Science Fiction Fan community ("Fandom") to meet with each other and share their interests and experiences. Authors and illustrators (and later publishers, editors, and agents) also came, not as heroes or stars (paid for their participation); but as fans themselves. At these conventions the distance between the fans and the professionals was very small. A common observation is that the only difference between a fan and a pro is that the fan hasn't been published yet, and having talked to many established SciFi writers I can attest that most of them started attending WorldCons as fans long before they published their first story. These Cons are all about the fans, giving them a chance to meet and talk to other like minded people. Furthermore, these Con's are run by fans who volunteer their time to make them possible.

Now not all fans are alike, there are a lot of subgroups within Fandom – those that like to dress up in costumes, those who don't, those like Star Wars, those that don't, etc. One of the principles of going to these Con's is to be tolerant of everyone else's eccentricities while they are tolerant of yours. So while you'll never see me in a Star Fleet uniform, I don't react when I encounter someone who does.

So what does any of this have to do with Christianity and the Church?

My understanding of "church" as I believe God intended it to be is all about the community of believers getting together to share their experiences getting to know God – much like fan run Con's. Unfortunately, too often those institutions which call themselves churches bear a closer resemblance to the company run conventions putting on a good (if well meaning) show. To make this easier to explain I will use the term "churches" (lower case) when talking about " those institutions which call themselves churches" and "The Church" (capitalized) when I talk about what I believe God wants from his people.

Most churches are organized to put on some number of regularly scheduled shows (meetings) each week, and to provide services to the members. I believe The Church is about enabling Christians to meet with each other (regularly or not) so that they can provide services to each other.

Most churches make a strong distinction between the professionals (the Pastors, Ministers. etc.) and the members. Some even promote their leaders, making celebrities of them and putting them on pedestals (from which they often fall). I believe The Church considers all Christians as equal, just with different roles in the body.

Most churches expect the professionals to do most of the work so they can sit back and enjoy the show. I believe The Church expects everyone to participate and contribute.

Most churches expect a great deal of conformity from their members, expecting them to all look alike and believe exactly the same things. I believe The Church has a small list of core beliefs, and beyond that expects tolerance as each Christian grows in their understanding of God.

Some churches are quite mercenary, looking to get money from their members. Others are run by well meaning Christians who just want to be able to provide a good show and good services to the members; but since that takes a lot of money, in both cases they end up focused on finances. I believe The Church is about individual Christians helping each other (as well as others in need) which doesn't take a large central budget.

I think one reason I feel so comfortable at WorldCon is that I can see people who are looking for the kind of community which The Church is meant to be; but too often isn't.

Posted by Steven at 05:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

September 06, 2006

Books : Whose Freedom

Whose Freedom?
By George Lakoff

Short Version: a "must read" for anyone who wants to engage in discourse on American politics.

Long Version:
In America, both blue-state folks ("Progressives", "Liberals") and red-state folks ("Conservatives") claims that their policies and actions serve to defend "Freedom". Further, as you hear them speak it becomes apparent that each side views the other side's claims of being "for freedom" as hypocritical at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

Lakoff (a respected cognitive scientist and linguist) has written the book "Whose Freedom" to propose a somewhat different position – that they are both right. Both are staunch defenders of Freedom – as they understand the definition of "Freedom". The problem is that they are honestly and sincerely using two different definitions of Freedom, and that a lack of understanding of the complexities of what it means to be "free" underlies much of the miscommunication and rancor in American politics.

The first third of the book is a very thorough, rational, and unbiased analysis of why, while freedom seems like a simple an obvious concept, the application of freedom to society can result in many shades of meaning (not just the two most often represented in American politics; but many others as well). He starts with defining "Simple Freedom" – those core concepts everyone agrees on; but then shows how small differences in how people interpret individual words in those definitions can lead people to apply those common ideas differently to real world situations.

The second third of the book is a detailed analysis of the meanings of "Freedom" as the word is used by modern American progressives and conservatives. There are examples where the policies of each group appear to be inconsistent; but Lakoff proposes that each group is guided by a simple vision of the structure of society, and that their definitions of Freedom and the policies which come from it are all completely consistent and predictable in the context of that vision. I should note here that throughout the book, Lakoff is clear that he considers himself a progressive; but in these first two thirds of the book he tries to be unbiased in his presentation. In my opinion he is more successful in this regard in the first third than the second, where I noticed a half dozen times where the presentation demonstrated his personal bias. That however is a minority of the content - most of it remains unbiased.

The final section of the book is essentially Lakoff's (now quite biased) suggestions for what progressives need to do to get their vision of America understood and appreciated by the electorate, starting with an analysis of why conservatives have been so successful at communicating their idea of Freedom for the last thirty years. Much of this section draws upon Lakoff's expertise as a cognitive scientist – understanding how people receive and process information, understanding the role of "frames" and "metaphors" in communication. The proposals are well thought out and grounded in science.

For me, the middle part of the book was the most fascinating. I have long known that my own political views do not match those espoused by the major political parties here; but the book has both helped me understand why that is the true, and in some cases helped me clarify my own opinions and reasoning. Furthermore, it has provided a means for me to translate the political rhetoric of both parties into terms which I find easier to evaluate.

However, even for those of more orthodox political views – both progressives and conservatives, I strongly recommend this book. Too often these days political discourse is dominated by people talking past each other, largely because people don't actually understand the other side's point of view. This book is a good start at correcting those misunderstandings.

Posted by Steven at 03:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 08, 2006

Life : Getting my Mojo Back

I'm coming to the end of my nice, long vacation. I had become rather burned out at work over the summer and wasn't working at my full capability, so I've taken 3 weeks off to get well rested and relaxed before this Fall's new projects start up. What is unique about this vacation is that I actually have concrete measurements of how burned out I was and how I have recovered.

For my Birthday (actually, near the start of my vacation), Anne gave me a Nintendo DS Lite portable game system. Two of the cartridges she bought me were "Brain Age" and "Big Brain Academy", both of which are IQ-test like puzzle programs. "Big Brain Academy" (my favorite of the two) has 5 categories of puzzles: Think, Memorize, Analyze, Compute, and Identify. Each category has three kinds of puzzles; each puzzle can be played at three levels of difficulty. You choose the category, puzzle, and difficulty and then try to solve as many randomized puzzles of that type and difficulty as you can in a limited period of time. The result is a numerical score, and bronze, silver and gold medals are awarded if you score above certain thresholds. The puzzles themselves are both fun and challenging.

Anyway, I received the gift near the start of my vacation (when I was still fairly burned out), and I didn't do so well. I managed all right with the six kinds of Compute and Identify puzzle (getting silver medals even on hard; but no gold); but with the six Think and Analyze puzzles I was only able to get silver when I played on easy, and for Memorize I could only get bronze on easy. However, now that I am near the end of my vacation and am fairly rested, I have gold medals in all of the Compute and Identify puzzles at all difficulties, all golds in four of the six Think and Analyze puzzles (and all silver or better in the remaining two). My scores on the Memorize puzzles also improved; but remain weaker than the others (no gold on one, gold only on easy on another, and gold on easy and normal on the third). One lesson here is that short-term memory is probably just not one of my strengths as this age.

I even started to wonder mid-vacation if my improvement was really a matter of getting rested or if it was just a matter of practice, so I set the game aside for two days and they played again, and my scores still improved. Having this metric is very interesting – particularly the opportunity it provides to see how things change after I go back to work.

Posted by Steven at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

September 25, 2006

TV : Drama, Comedy, Mystery

The Fall TV season has started which means I am in the midst of my usual ritual of trying news shows hoping that at least a couple of them are worth watching. I'll post some of my early opinions soon.

What I wanted to write about now is a trend I have just come to realize and understand.

I don't like straight Dramas
I don't like straight Comedies

I've been checking out shows and several have left me quite cold, despite having at least reasonable acting and writing. To be clear, these weren't great shows; but my total lack of enthusiasm seemed out of place given that they were not entirely without objective virtue. Anticipating wanting to write reviews here soon I put some serious thought into why they didn't grab me – and then I recalled one of the sessions at WorldCon.

The session talked about how real life was a mixture of laughter, pain and sorrow, of comedy, horror and drama. We have terms like "gallows humor" or "foxhole humor" because it is human nature to find reasons to laugh in the most desperate situations. Therefore, the panel proposed, that TV shows which are "just" drama, or "just" comedy or "just" horror are inherently not realistic. It is the mixture of these genres's that best reflect real life.

With that in mind, I reconsidered the shows which had failed to grab me, and it's true -they were dramas in which no one laughed, or comedies in which there was no underlying sorrow. People just aren't like that.

With that insight I want back over other shows I have liked, and for the most part the pattern fit – I like "dramedy's" (drama-comedies). I like shows where characters laugh and cry and scream.

There were however a few exceptions which led me to my other realization:

I like Mysteries more than I dislike straight Dramas and Comedies.

I'll put up with shows where no one ever laughs (or always laughs) if there's a puzzle to engage my mind. Of course a drama-comedy-mystery is even better; but I'll take when I can get.

Posted by Steven at 07:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)