definitions

The last couple of posts i've been harping on a little something called reality, and how christian culture as we know it is unable to get in touch with it, unable to change and unable to help, unable to serve. Now i've been challenged to better define what i mean here, because i may be running the risk of saying only "arr, reality! be in it, fix it! I dunno what it means but do something real!"
Okay, here's a try. I recognize that there are different realities, often overlaid upon each other. To make this concept simpler for myself to understand, try to imagine a piece of paper with three lines drawn across...one high, one mid, one low.


There. Something kind of like that. Pay no attention to the units there, that's not my drawing, i just found that and it's close enough for the mental picture.
Okay, take the top line. That's "High Reality". That's where i come from- good family, good church, immersed in more or less highbrow and rich christianity in america. Not trying to make judgement, bear with me. But this is upper segment of society. Okay, so the pros to this. We are rich, we are comfortable, we are moral, we have the potential to do much. Here are the cons. We are unable to do anything because we do not know how to be uncomfortable, we are the justifiers, we are looking out for only ourselves and those closest to us because we have blinders on-again, due to comfortablity.
Okay, now to Middle Reality (Middle Earth anyone? HA! er nevermind). Okay, so living with your head on here is often a battle and a choice. Here, we may be a bit richer and have the ability to live comfortably, but we are willing to be uncomfortable- why? because of awareness of the Low Reality, and also of the High Reality. We may be ones grown tired of High Reality, and are ready to do something to "help" the circumstances of those in Low Reality. Or we may be born into it. Or we may have somehow gotten here, through our own efforts or from another's benevolence, from low reality. This includes the people that aren't incredibly rich, but are actually doing something with their life and helping others. This includes the people that could be making the tops in the Highest Fringes of High Reality, but are choosing to be lower, choosing to live where they live and give away more than seems reasonable. Why? Many reasons. But i want to live here, in Middle Reality, because if i call myself a christian, one who loves all people as christ does, it brings me closer to all people, both the Highers and the Lowers. it allows me to get my hands dirty, and there's not as much of a stigma associated with involvment in "liberal" social justice here. Really for me it's more awareness of everything that's going on in the world, and the pressure to perform is down. I don't have to live with the acheivement mindset involved in High Reality.
Now to Low Reality. I mean people in projects, i mean homeless people. Hungry people. War-torn people. Addicted people. Low Reality is again defined in where you live and what your social status is. These really are the people that need help. Perhaps they are good people and love Jesus and just need a chance for better circumstance. Maybe they really are messed up spiritually and mentally and need us to love them without much hope of gaining anything out of it. But these are the ones Christ went to...he loved even when rejected. These are the ones i want to learn to love.
There are also fringe realities, such as Uber-High, celebrities, Trumps, ect. There are also Uber-Lows, such as lepers in Calcutta.
What i mean by doing somehthing real is getting into the low and helping those in need. I mean actually sacrifice something. I mean make yourself uncomfortable. I mean don't just throw your money at poverty and suffering. Throw your heart into it. Get messy every now and then. Be involved in something bigger than you. I'm going to try. I know i'm still in the thinking and feeling phase of this. Specific actions in this regard are few, but they do exist. More on social justice later.

Heart of Darkness

Here's another book analysis for you: Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. In this novel, a sailor, Marlow, tells his shipmates about his adventures on the Congo River in Africa. He is the captain of a riverboat, but spends most of his time on land repairing his ship and dealing with the inefficient bureacracy of the colonial forces that are governing the land. However, his most remarkable experience is travelling upriver to find a man named Kurtz, who was employed by the same company as Marlow and has been involved in the ivory trade. All Marlow's employer wants is the ivory, but Marlow himself is fascinated by Kurtz. When, through a series of misadventures, they reach Kurtz's settlement, he is dying of fever, but they find that all the natives love him, he is somewhat of a ruler, or at least a treasured member of their community. In the end, they take Kurtz and the ivory away, the employer gets rich from the ivory, Kurtz dies;, his last words are, "The horror! The horror!", and Marlow survives to tell the story.
What does this rather depressing story mean? Well, something rather depressing, actually. The colonialist forces, as represented by the manager of the company and the bureacracy, are in charge...and they win in the end. Marlow seems to be a representation of humanity, he realizes that the "savages" are humans and is always focused on people in the story. Perhaps, rather, he is just a good judge of character, who recognizes truth and justice or the lack thereof. Kurtz can be seen as a representation of ideas or idealism. i think this is somewhat seen in the line, "all of Europe went into the making of Kurtz", and he is educated, an influential speaker, and a writer. He had some rather strange ideas, that Marlow had seen in his writings, and ideas that at times seemed contradictory. However, his ideas seem to have become refined in the wilderness, and he was on the verge of great things...but his life was cut short by sickness. (interesting how Kurtz sounds like the german word for breif (Kurz)). Perhaps, if he had more time, had not been influenced by the colonialists to work as much, ect., would he have done more? He was despised by the company, but though Marlow is made uneasy by him, he is admired by both Marlow, his friends, and the natives. Could we be looking at idealism stifled by the horror of reality? Which only leads me to more questions. Are ideas always smothered by reality? Is there any hope for new ideas and radical thinkers? Will greed/capitalism always win? Everyone is looking out for themselves. Maybe there is a connexion in The Savage's statement from Brave New World...that is, "If you had God, you'd have a reason for self denial", and he also mentions chastity and independent thinking, and the world ruler responds, "But industrial civilization is only possible when there's no self denial". And in that book, too, the hero (The Savage) dies. But that's because he wouldn't be left alone, though that was all he wanted, to be alone with God. He hung himself so that he could be alone in peace with God, without the debauchery of his society to distract him. But this again leads to more problems and questions...again, are all the "idealistic" notions of self-denial, chastity, God, ect., incompatable with society, with other people, with government? So as not to leave on such a depressing note, i'm going to give a bit of an answer. As Christians, we are called to continue obediently under Christ, called to suffer, called to disciple the ends of the earth. So there are a couple of possibilities. 1) The "ideas" are not incompatible, that's why we're supposed to "do" all this stuff. 2) The "ideas" are incompatible with the world. But we continue to obey, we suffer anyway...but our home is not here anyway, our hope is in an undying Savior, and our future is in a new heaven and earth, where corruption is gone, where God's perfection is evident.
Now i must cease before i launch my psyche into a complete existential crisis.:)

The answer?

So, i thought i should give a response to the tree question. I know, it was random, but i was trying to get you guys to talk... as well as help me answer this great question.


My physics teacher asked this in class the other day, and left me thinking about it.


"If a tree falls in the woods, and nothing hears it, does it make a sound?"


She answered yesterday.


"No. Sound is defined as waves hitting a reciever. If there's no reciever, then there's no sound."


Ah, very concise and scientific. But as an amatuer philosopher, i cannot be satisfied. There were some good responses from y'all. To state a few:


"Because we define sound as vibrations caused my movement and transfered through a medium, often air, but can be anything. Sound is not defined by what a person hears, because there are many sounds we can't hear." (Jonny)


"I think it makes a sound... some squirrel heard it..." (Josh)


"put a tape recorder in the woods, and ultimately you will hear a tree or a branch falling and making a noise." (Gian)


"Hook an electric thinger up to it & it'll detect the waves hitting it, it recieves it, is modified by it..." (Mark....whilst probably making big hand motions...)

But my thoughts? What if a deaf person is there? I mean, waves hitting the reciever... but not processed into the brain?

Oh, but Chris had it right... basically... who cares...what importance is there to this?

Guess the point is this. Science doesn't think of everything.


And discussion is important. (hence my letting y'all discuss before i posted...)


Also, i apparently need something more interesting to blog about.