Ok, so there was a rather famous (or infamous) experiment in the late 90s involving the metaphysical effects of emotion on water crystals. I’ve talked in the past, but let me just reiterate by saying that the study was hardly scientific. The complete set of photographs from the study was never released—only the photographs which proved his point. In addition, he was offered one million dollars in 2003 to reproduce his findings in a controlled scientific environment and he never took them up on it. The reason is that the results are impossible to reproduce. In fact, there’s no proof that they actually happened in the first place. People have tried to reproduce those results in controlled environments and have failed every time.

I’m not one to belittle anyone’s spiritual beliefs, so please, if you want to believe in the metaphysical effects of emotion on water, I will support you 100%. Just don’t claim science as the basis for this. Science is usually a bad basis for matters of faith, just as faith is usually a bad basis for matters of science.

The reason I bring this up now is that there is now a Facebook event to try to use this phenomenon to help the victims of Japanese tsunami.

Again, if you choose to believe in the metaphysical effects of emotions (and there’s no hard scientific evidence against this), more power to you, and thank you for taking a sincere interest in the well-being of the Japanese people. Japan can probably use as much prayer and positive thought as it can get right now. But be very careful that slacktivism does not free your mind from bearing the burden of the Japanese people right now. Even if the metaphysical (prayer or positive energy) is your reaction to the pleas of Japan, one water ceremony isn’t going to cut it.

If you want to help Japan, be relentless. Pray every night for them. Give money to charities that are helping them. If you have skills in influencing others or organizing things, try to get together some sort of organized effort to raise or send money to help them. But above all, don’t forget about them. The pain will probably go on a lot longer than the sympathy will.

I realize that there are probably some for whom this water ceremony is a natural extension of a lot of other caring acts, including some very tangible ones, and I really want to commend those people for coming at this from multiple angles; but I also know the popularity of slacktivism on Facebook, because it’s fun to think that we can take a stand without getting out of our seats. Participate, or don’t—just don’t fall into that second camp.

It is so on the stage, as you know well enough, that someone sits and prompts by whispers; [he is hidden;] he is the inconspicuous one; he is and wishes to be overlooked. But then there is another, he strides out prominently, he draws every eye to himself. For that reason he has been given his name, that is: actor. He impersonates a distinct individual. In the skillful sense of this illusory art, each word becomes true when embodied in him, true through him—and yet he is told what he shall say by the hidden one that sits and whispers. No one is so foolish as to regard the prompter as more important than the actor.

Now forget this light talk of arts. Alas, in regard to things spiritual, the foolishness of many is this, that they in the secular sense look upon the speaker as an actor, and the listeners as theatergoers who are to pass judgment on the artist. But the speaker is not the actor—not in the remotest sense. No, the speaker is the prompter. There are no mere theatergoers present, for each listener will be looking into his own heart. The stage is eternity, and the listener, if he is the true listener (and if he is not, he is at fault) stands before God during the talk. The prompter whispers to the actor what he is to say, but the actor’s repetition of it is the main concern—is the solemn charm of the art. The speaker whispers the word to the listeners. But the main concern is earnestness: that the listeners by themselves, with themselves, and to themselves, in the silence before God, may speak with the help of this address.

The address is not given for the speaker’s sake, in order that men may praise or blame him. The listener’s repetition of it is what is aimed at. If the speaker has the responsibility for what he whispers, then the listener has an equally great responsibility not to fall short in his task. In the theater, the play is staged before an audience who are called theatergoers; but at the devotional address, God himself is present. In the most earnest sense, God is the critical theatergoer, who looks on to see how the lines are spoken and how they are listened to; hence here the customary audience is wanting. The speaker is then the prompter, and the listener stands openly before God. The listener, if I may say so, is the actor, who in all truth acts before God.

- Soren Kierkegaard, Purity of Heart

(more…)

Though it’s not nearly as bad now as it was in, say, high school, I have historically had a lot of angst. I’m talking J.D. Salinger levels of angst, here. Not that I’m always gloomy or pissed off about something—far from it. It was just this vague disposition. (Remember, angst is, by definition, nonspecific.)

After a few solid years for this, I realized that I really had trouble relating to people who hadn’t had some sort of anguish (either external or internal) or Existential crisis. (I’m not quite that pretentious anymore. But if you knew me or read my journal while I was in college, you probably know what I’m talking about.) It seemed to me that people without that kind of life experience had a propensity for identifying and solving all the wrong problems (of problems dealing with anguish or personal crisis, anyway). I had enough trouble identifying those problems by myself, so I pretty much avoided anyone who “just wanted to cheer me up.”

You know that old saying, adversity breeds character? The opposite is also true. All of that really seemed to come together when I read this quote from Nicholas Berdyaev:

Not the worst but the best of mankind suffer the most. The intensity with which suffering is felt may be considered an index of a man’s depth. The more the intellect is developed and the soul refined … the more sensitive does one become to pain, not only the pains of the soul but physical pains as well. … But for pain and suffering, the animal in man would be victorious.

(more…)

I picked up a book, An Introduction to Existentialism at the used book store down the street (best $3.98 I ever spent). I’m really impressed with it so far. I read a few chapters in the airport and on the plane ride back, and kept thinking, “Man, I need to blog about this.” By the time we landed, there were too many of those thoughts to blog about, so I had to settle on just one.

Long-time readers and friends probably know about my disdain for Idealist philosophy. That same conviction is actually the binding force of Existentialism—rather than a comprehensive system, it is a reaction against another system of irresponsible optimism.

Idealism gave birth to the concept of Utopianism. Those who knew me in college know how much I was into books like 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451—books that were literary reactions against Utopianism. That was actually a precursor to my Existential tendencies. I just didn’t see utopia as the answer to man’s problems. I didn’t see it as a very realistic or even desirable goal.

This quote, taken from Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, sums up pretty neatly why I fall into this camp:

(more…)

I recently received this e-mail at work, which was sent to the management team:

Hey guys,

I’m trying to get a feel for the structure of each team’s regular team meetings.

What do the meetings consist of?
Examples: continuing education for your team, cross training with another team, updates on client projects, etc.

If you could send me any feedback on the frequency and structure of these meetings so that I can get a gauge of this, that would be great.

Thanks,
Joe

Here is my reply:

Hey Joe –

Good questions. My team meetings are held on dates one less than multiples of three if said date is on a work day and not on a Friday. To formalize the tone of the meetings, all speech is in Latin, excepting readings from the ancient web design texts, which are in the original Greek. On odd-numbered dates, we discuss web design topics (we discuss front-end design on prime-numbered dates and development on all other dates), and on even-numbered dates, we talk about why we are here, with a focus on Existential freedom (mainly Sartre, but we delve into some Kierkegaard from time to time). All discussion of Hegel is disallowed, and discussion of any of the other Idealist philosophers is frowned upon.

We’ve also held special meetings lately to talk about the ontological impact of the Postmodern shift on the career college industry, with specific regards to Kierkegaard and gunsmithing. No official conclusions have been drawn, as we encourage each employee to exercise his or her individual freedom and choose an outcome for himself or herself.

I hope this helps.

- Brandon Gregory

In an earlier post, I talk at length about my disdain for the Idealistic pseudoscience behind such productions as What the *Bleep* Do We Know? and The Secret. I originally tackled it from a moral/philosophical standpoint, but I thought it was time to take a look at the science behind it. Not that I’ll be able to adequately do that in one post, but I can look at one experiment in particular that has bothered me.

Here’s the gist of it: Containers of water had words taped onto them. The words portrayed emotions, such as love, gratitude, anger, and hatred. The containers were left alone with the words taped to them for a period of time, then the containers were frozen and the water crystals photographed. The “positive” emotions formed beautiful, soft-looking crystal shapes, while the “negative” emotions formed jagged, harsh-looking crystal shapes.

The philosophical significance of this is that the adult human body is roughly 60% water. If emotions can have a physical effect on water, they can have a physical effect on the human body as well.

The experiment was done by a Japanese scientist named Masaru Emoto—a man who, I’ve heard, has hinted that he is not a “real scientist.” The experiment was done only once, and documented inadequately. It has never been reproduced, by him or anyone else.

In this article on Emoto’s work, the interviewer asks whether multiple photographs were taken and how the “winners” were chosen. Emoto replies with the following:

I choose [the photographs] for their goodness and their beauty. There is a phrase in Japanese, shin zen be. Shin means truth. Zen means goodness. Be means beautiful. I select photographs of crystals with all three elements combined.

Nice and philosophical, but hardly scientific.

James Randi has publicly offered one million dollars to anyone who could reproduce Emoto’s results in a controlled, double-blind (read: scientific) lab test. To date, there are no takers.

The fact that these findings are as well-known as they are is testament to the persistent human fascination with metaphysical studies. (We’ll define religion as a metaphysical study for this article.) Religion was, for a long period of time, considered the ultimate truth. With the advent of science, people began to doubt the authority of religion, but people weren’t willing to give up on the metaphysical. So now, we have scientific (or pseudoscientific) research into the validity of metaphysics.

Modern people seem to be obsessed with exhibiting some degree of control over the world around them. No one wants to believe that they are mere products of the environs around them—but we have an unfortunate tendency to overcorrect and yearn for control over mere choice. I’m no expert, but I believe this is the basis of Scientology. Now, I’m not one to belittle anyone’s beliefs. I just think that faith works best as faith, just as science works best as science.

Anyway, just some late-night ramblings from your cynical amateur philosopher friend. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

This is all based on some light reading I’ve done lately, so I’m probably missing a few key pieces from this collection of thoughts. From an Existential point of view, freedom is inseparable from responsibility. If we have the freedom to choose our actions, we ultimately must be held responsible for them. This is why Sartre talked about freedom as this terrifying concept: some people are so afraid of that responsibility that they seek ways to revoke their intellectual freedom.

One big example of this is in our propensity to join clubs and organizations (yes, religion included), or, more simply put, our strong desire to belong. This in itself is not bad—but when we start letting these clubs or organizations make our choices for us, we give up our freedom, and we get to relax a bit because someone else can take the responsibility if something goes wrong.

But I don’t think everyone would couple the two together. In fact, by many standards, freedom and responsibility very nearly mean the opposite thing. And I don’t mean responsibility in the traditional sense: getting a job, paying the bills, and taking care of loved ones. I’m talking about being held accountable for your actions. In this line of thought, freedom means less responsibility, which, by Existential standards, means less freedom. In this line of thought, the greatest freedom is to have no freedom.

(Now, I’m not proposing that this is a universal belief, nor am I proposing that it is the most prevalent belief. But admit it: you know people like this.)

Maybe it’s the INTP in me, but that just does not make sense to me. I really despise a person who does not accept responsibility for his or her own choices, either socially or intellectually. Bear in mind that I was an Existentialist long before I knew what Existentialism really was. This has just always made sense to me. Yes, there are times when I don’t want to believe it, but I can’t like myself when I don’t.

I believe that everyone longs for freedom—but their own personal definition of freedom. I think this is why I really don’t get along with these people: we’re constantly moving in opposite directions, philosophically speaking. And this isn’t just the complete bastard who never wants to care what other people think of him—this is also the politically-active individual that lets her political party formulate her opinions for her. This is the Christian who has not worked out his own salvation with fear and trembling. This is the teenager who buys a pre-packaged identity at Hot Topic and takes her social cues from music television.

And I think this is why I’m so into psychology as well. I need to know what conscious and unconscious influences are weighing on me so that I can think independently of them.

And yes, I realize that I still have a lot of work in this regard, but it is something I want to learn and am making strides to learn.

Anyway, there’s not much a point to this post, other than a minor epiphany and some late-night ranting. Feel free to reply with any thoughts you have on freedom, Existential or otherwise.

“The majority of people are not only afraid of holding a wrong opinion, as they are holding an opinion alone.”
- Soren Kierkegaard

In most cases, social proof is a bigger motivator than intellectual integrity. And I’m no exception—I’ve jumped on bandwagons before, picked up opinions without really thinking them through just because other like-minded individuals had picked them up. This just further evidences the tendency we have to be primarily social creatures.

And, from a psychological standpoint, it’s no surprise. On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, social acceptance is a much more basic human need than intellectual advancement (self-actualization).

So, let me be clear: one of my greatest desires is to help other people think themselves up to intellectual advancement and self-actualization. But that’s not a one-step process. And it’s not something everyone will get around to in their dealings with me. The much more basic needs are social and are, fortunately, easier to meet with a little caring. The important thing is to balance the two. I have a tendency to focus on one at the expense of the other, forgetting to either challenge or care for other individuals, depending on my relationship with them.

Anyway, this is one of my few posts that isn’t really meant for anyone. I just had to write this out to formulate it all in my head, and decided to keep it. Thanks for reading, though!

First, a few words from my personal hero, Soren Kierkegaard; then, some thoughts on worship leadership.

When a man turns his back upon someone and walks away, it is so easy to see that he walks away, but when a man hits upon a method of turning his face towards the one he is walking away from, hits upon a method of walking backwards while with appearance and glance and salutations he greets the person, giving assurances again and again that he is coming immediately, or incessantly saying, “Here I am”—although he gets farther and farther away by walking backwards—then it is not so easy to become aware. And so it is with the one who, rich in good intentions and quick to promise, retreats backwards farther and farther from the good. With the help of intentions and promises he maintains an orientation towards the good, he is turned towards the good, and with this orientation towards the good he moves backwards farther and farther away from it. With ever renewed intention and promise it seems as if he takes a step forward, and yet he not only remains standing still but really takes a step backward. The intention taken in vain, the unfulfilled promise leaves a residue of despondency, dejection, which perhaps soon again leave behind only greater languor. As a drunkard constantly requires stronger and stronger stimulation—in order to become intoxicated, likewise the one who has fallen into intentions and promises constantly requires more and more stimulation—in order to walk backward.

- Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love

So what does this have to do with worship leadership? Let’s take a look back at an unorthodox, although very Biblical, definition of worship.

(more…)

Let me preface this by saying that I am by no means an expert in any of the subject I’m about to discuss. If I get something wrong, feel free to gently remind me.

I’ve been fascinated as of late with the Greek word Logos, which literally means “word,” or, with some interpretation, logic or reasoning. It’s where we get the -ology suffix in the English language (words like biology, idiology, and theology). Even though it means “word,” though, it doesn’t refer to the grammatical object—there’s another word for that. Logos had a deeper meaning.

(more…)