Today and yesterday I was feeling sick (again). I had a conversation this morning and I complained about the worst part: lack of drive.
My classes are the limit of my thinking. I did not have a 1/2-page margin today filled with business ideas, spiritual revelations and to-do lists. I just listened. I think I learned more than I normally do.
However, I'm working on a project with my church, and I have no ambition to do it. I can think of things to do. Before I would have a pressing drive to do as many as I could as fast as I could, and then to think of new things to do. Today I just drifted, dutifully doing my homework.
I feel subdued. Maybe this is how normal people live all the time. It's like I'm normally awake, looking around in every direction, first at the path in front of me, then thinking about short-cuts and potential cross-country jaunts, afterwards up into the blue sky and distant future, finally taking in the scenery. Then back at the trail. It is a lot easier to do what I did this week: keep your eyes fixed on the trail in front of you and not spend time looking elsewhere.
With this level of ambition as a permanent state, I probably would do what all my peers are going to do: settle into a job and just do what I'm supposed to. I would be something safe and secure, working 8 hours a day and making a good amount of money.
Just three weeks ago I wanted to break out and do something crazy and ambitious, throwing all caution to the wind. This week, I just want to stay comfortable. Today, I am satisfied in doing nothing more than filling out applications and doing my homework. My three-weeks-ago self would be appalled!
Should I fight this feeling of mono-pathy (sort of like a-pathy, but with a single-focused concern)? Should I ever strive to be uncomfortable? Or should I settle down when my body wants to settle down?
I think I'm going to have to opt for the first option. I'll try to do the things I would normally do by nature when I am feeling well. If I don't have ambition, I'll fake it.
I'll just re-read Teddy's admonition (conveniently printed at the top of my blog), hop back into the arena whether I feel like it or not, and get more bloody.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Vanderbilt
I interviewed at Vanderbilt in Tennessee on Monday and I loved it. Pretty much everything about it was amazing. Here are the best things about Vanderbilt.
1. The students are happy. They are really happy. According the surveys, they are the happiest med students in the country. They have parties, they know each other and they even go line dancing together.
2. Extremely flexible program. Vanderbilt has this emphasis program that allows you to study what you want. I would probably look into Global Health or maybe healthcare administration (they have the #1 business school in this field).
3. Location. The South is amazing. Grits are amazing. Sweet potato pancakes are amazing. Sweet tea is amazing. Southerners are amazing (they talk to you and are friendly; I pulled out a map and it wasn't 3 seconds before someone asked if I needed help). Vanderbilt has about a billion trees, and they actually are changing colors! It is beautiful! Tennessee and Nashville are pretty cool too (though their roads are very poorly designed).
The interview itself went great. I just talked about FISH for an hour while the interviewer laughed and smiled. I felt very confident about it. It was a great first interview. I'll have something to cling to when I get torn apart by questions that actually are tough (beyond just "tell stories about FISH").
I've got another one at UCSF which should be much tougher. UCSF is very highly ranked among medical schools even though it doesn't have much reputation outside the medical community.
1. The students are happy. They are really happy. According the surveys, they are the happiest med students in the country. They have parties, they know each other and they even go line dancing together.
2. Extremely flexible program. Vanderbilt has this emphasis program that allows you to study what you want. I would probably look into Global Health or maybe healthcare administration (they have the #1 business school in this field).
3. Location. The South is amazing. Grits are amazing. Sweet potato pancakes are amazing. Sweet tea is amazing. Southerners are amazing (they talk to you and are friendly; I pulled out a map and it wasn't 3 seconds before someone asked if I needed help). Vanderbilt has about a billion trees, and they actually are changing colors! It is beautiful! Tennessee and Nashville are pretty cool too (though their roads are very poorly designed).
The interview itself went great. I just talked about FISH for an hour while the interviewer laughed and smiled. I felt very confident about it. It was a great first interview. I'll have something to cling to when I get torn apart by questions that actually are tough (beyond just "tell stories about FISH").
I've got another one at UCSF which should be much tougher. UCSF is very highly ranked among medical schools even though it doesn't have much reputation outside the medical community.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Meism
I always thought the people at UCLA had a lot in common when it came to beliefs. Last Sunday I started thinking about exactly how much they had in common. It turned out to be a lot.
--------------------------------
A new religion has emerged. Like other religions, it has its priests, dogmas, sacraments, and practices. Unlike other religions however, it does not itself claim to be a religion; its adherents simply believe it is the right the Way.
The focus and center of the religion is the self. That is not to say that the practicioners of this religion are necessarily selfish or at least any more selfish than any other parishioner, but rather that the religion is centered on the self. In a sense, the self is holy or set apart. Christians base their religion on what the Bible says. These people base their religion on themselves; the opinions and beliefs within them are, to them, Truth.
The religion has very much in common with Deism and can even be thought of as a variant of it. Because of its similarity, and because of the focus on the self, I have decided to call the religion “Meism,” and its parishioners “meists.”
Epistemology
Meism holds firmly that “truth is relative.” This statement encompasses certain things (particularly morality and theology), but not other things (e.g. scientific truths). This tenet gives them the ability to “doublethink,” that is, to think two contradictory thoughts and hold both to be true.
Morality
Meism has a strict moral code “Thou shalt not offend another person in any way.” This certainly includes all forms of violence, but also includes things like insults or proselytizing, as these are thought to offend the psyche of a person. They firmly and sometimes militantly believe that any moral dictate placed on them beyond this is itself a violation of the code.
The Good
Meists believe explicitly they must define their own purpose in life. Nevertheless, in reality they believe that environmentalism, medicine, multiculturalism, and altruism are all part of the Good. Environmentalism and medicine are probably valued because of their eschatology. Multiculturalism serves as a kind of evangelism, and is consistent with their moral maxim. Altruism is valued, though there seems to be no motivation from other doctrines; perhaps it is an emotional inheritance from Christianity.
Physicalism
Meists are physicalists and believe that the only existing thing is matter. They disbelieve in souls, and so strongly reject Dualism. Some Meists bend this doctrine to give God a non-material nature.
Eschatology
Meists do not seriously believe in any supernatural place for themselves. Their hope for themselves is as close to eternal life as they can get with medicine. Many will also try to do something “to be remembered” and so live on through that. The destiny of the race is thus also material, making the preservation of the earth and her species of utmost importance.
Rewards and Punishments
There is no clear sense of cosmic reward or judgement in Meism. In many Meists may believe in what they call “karma,” a sense of good things happening to good people. In many there is also an ill-defined sense of altruism being good, though with no philosophical support or adequate rewards system, it is rarely practiced.
Cosmology
Essentially Deist, Meism holds that a transcendent creator caused the Big Bang but then has remained uninvolved in it. Modernist views of evolutionary development have proceeded.
Theology
Meism believes in a powerful, intelligent and transcendent Force as its Deity. It claims that knowledge of God more specific that is not just unknown, but unknowable (i.e. it cannot be known if God is personal, immanent, etc.). Meists do not accept or consider evidence or argument that suggests more could be known of God.
Sacred
The two things that are holy to Meism are Science and Self. Meists believe science it is set apart and unassailable by profane things. The Self, and specifically beliefs about Meism, are considered Most Holy. They cannot be challenged, even by Science. Challenges to Meism are avoided; Meists will doublethink that the challenge is actually not a challenge (e.g. if someone were to challenge with “Jesus is God” a Meist would reply “That’s true for you”).
Clergy
Meists treat scientists as priests; their words are held as truth. In non-scientific realms (e.g. environmental policy, abortion legality), their opinions are extremely important, if not all-important.
Self Identification
Meism holds that it is a non-entity, that is, Meism does not believe there is any such thing as Meism. Meists hold that their doctrine is the Truth, and those that disagree with it are ‘close-minded.’
--------------------------------
A new religion has emerged. Like other religions, it has its priests, dogmas, sacraments, and practices. Unlike other religions however, it does not itself claim to be a religion; its adherents simply believe it is the right the Way.
The focus and center of the religion is the self. That is not to say that the practicioners of this religion are necessarily selfish or at least any more selfish than any other parishioner, but rather that the religion is centered on the self. In a sense, the self is holy or set apart. Christians base their religion on what the Bible says. These people base their religion on themselves; the opinions and beliefs within them are, to them, Truth.
The religion has very much in common with Deism and can even be thought of as a variant of it. Because of its similarity, and because of the focus on the self, I have decided to call the religion “Meism,” and its parishioners “meists.”
Epistemology
Meism holds firmly that “truth is relative.” This statement encompasses certain things (particularly morality and theology), but not other things (e.g. scientific truths). This tenet gives them the ability to “doublethink,” that is, to think two contradictory thoughts and hold both to be true.
Morality
Meism has a strict moral code “Thou shalt not offend another person in any way.” This certainly includes all forms of violence, but also includes things like insults or proselytizing, as these are thought to offend the psyche of a person. They firmly and sometimes militantly believe that any moral dictate placed on them beyond this is itself a violation of the code.
The Good
Meists believe explicitly they must define their own purpose in life. Nevertheless, in reality they believe that environmentalism, medicine, multiculturalism, and altruism are all part of the Good. Environmentalism and medicine are probably valued because of their eschatology. Multiculturalism serves as a kind of evangelism, and is consistent with their moral maxim. Altruism is valued, though there seems to be no motivation from other doctrines; perhaps it is an emotional inheritance from Christianity.
Physicalism
Meists are physicalists and believe that the only existing thing is matter. They disbelieve in souls, and so strongly reject Dualism. Some Meists bend this doctrine to give God a non-material nature.
Eschatology
Meists do not seriously believe in any supernatural place for themselves. Their hope for themselves is as close to eternal life as they can get with medicine. Many will also try to do something “to be remembered” and so live on through that. The destiny of the race is thus also material, making the preservation of the earth and her species of utmost importance.
Rewards and Punishments
There is no clear sense of cosmic reward or judgement in Meism. In many Meists may believe in what they call “karma,” a sense of good things happening to good people. In many there is also an ill-defined sense of altruism being good, though with no philosophical support or adequate rewards system, it is rarely practiced.
Cosmology
Essentially Deist, Meism holds that a transcendent creator caused the Big Bang but then has remained uninvolved in it. Modernist views of evolutionary development have proceeded.
Theology
Meism believes in a powerful, intelligent and transcendent Force as its Deity. It claims that knowledge of God more specific that is not just unknown, but unknowable (i.e. it cannot be known if God is personal, immanent, etc.). Meists do not accept or consider evidence or argument that suggests more could be known of God.
Sacred
The two things that are holy to Meism are Science and Self. Meists believe science it is set apart and unassailable by profane things. The Self, and specifically beliefs about Meism, are considered Most Holy. They cannot be challenged, even by Science. Challenges to Meism are avoided; Meists will doublethink that the challenge is actually not a challenge (e.g. if someone were to challenge with “Jesus is God” a Meist would reply “That’s true for you”).
Clergy
Meists treat scientists as priests; their words are held as truth. In non-scientific realms (e.g. environmental policy, abortion legality), their opinions are extremely important, if not all-important.
Self Identification
Meism holds that it is a non-entity, that is, Meism does not believe there is any such thing as Meism. Meists hold that their doctrine is the Truth, and those that disagree with it are ‘close-minded.’
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Laryngitis
I'm back. After long abandonment of my poor blog, I have returned!
Perhaps this need for expression is overwhelming as I have not been able to talk (Doctor's orders: Laryngitis). Maybe it's because everyone's doing it. Maybe I've been inspired by someone's example. Maybe it's because I'm procrastinating right now.
Whatever the reason. Here is one post. In the next post, I will briefly reflect what I've learned from a day without talking:
Have you ever not talked for an entire day? I hadn't either before today. It's really hard. Really hard. I bought a mini white board and have been writing notes like "HIS NAME IS JOHN" or "3 item: orange chicken, black pepper chicken, kung Pao."
The main lesson I think God has been attempting to drive into my thick skull is that 1. SLOW DOWN. 2. I should listen more 3. I should talk to God more. 4. Don't waste words.
1. I have been going very fast and doing too much. I need to slow down, and not being able to talk has facilitated that. I can't do everything I planned to do, and I'm liking it. It's very peaceful.
2. Not being able to talk at all forces me to listen to people a lot more.
3. Out of a need to talk with someone, I have been forced to communicate with God, the only one who can actually hear my thoughts. It has been refreshing spending time with God. He always has to do things like that to me.
4. I waste a lot of words. There is so much stupid stuff I think about saying, but the investment of writing it down on a whiteboard really dissuades me from "saying" it. Pro 17:27a "He that hath knowledge spareth his words..." I must have tons of knowledge today! Although I have even resorted to wasting whiteboard words. And probably blog words. So much for knowledge...
Overall, Laryngitis has been a largely positive experience, though not one I'd like to share with my friends.
Perhaps this need for expression is overwhelming as I have not been able to talk (Doctor's orders: Laryngitis). Maybe it's because everyone's doing it. Maybe I've been inspired by someone's example. Maybe it's because I'm procrastinating right now.
Whatever the reason. Here is one post. In the next post, I will briefly reflect what I've learned from a day without talking:
Have you ever not talked for an entire day? I hadn't either before today. It's really hard. Really hard. I bought a mini white board and have been writing notes like "HIS NAME IS JOHN" or "3 item: orange chicken, black pepper chicken, kung Pao."
The main lesson I think God has been attempting to drive into my thick skull is that 1. SLOW DOWN. 2. I should listen more 3. I should talk to God more. 4. Don't waste words.
1. I have been going very fast and doing too much. I need to slow down, and not being able to talk has facilitated that. I can't do everything I planned to do, and I'm liking it. It's very peaceful.
2. Not being able to talk at all forces me to listen to people a lot more.
3. Out of a need to talk with someone, I have been forced to communicate with God, the only one who can actually hear my thoughts. It has been refreshing spending time with God. He always has to do things like that to me.
4. I waste a lot of words. There is so much stupid stuff I think about saying, but the investment of writing it down on a whiteboard really dissuades me from "saying" it. Pro 17:27a "He that hath knowledge spareth his words..." I must have tons of knowledge today! Although I have even resorted to wasting whiteboard words. And probably blog words. So much for knowledge...
Overall, Laryngitis has been a largely positive experience, though not one I'd like to share with my friends.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Real Unifying Faith
The following was submitted to the Viewpoint section of the Daily Bruin and published on October 3, 2006:
Real Unifying Faith
“Religion is a personal thing… it is a choice for each individual to make.” Those of us who’ve spent any time at UCLA have heard that over and over, and you could have read it in the Viewpoint on Sept. 24, 2006 under the title, “Amid religious diversity, belief an individual choice.” This is the highest and most universal moral of on-campus religion. To a majority, faith is like hating carrots or loving broccoli: it has nothing at all to do with true or false, right or wrong. True and false are the realm of science; religious statements are not subject to uncompromising rules of logic as are scientific theories like gravity. But let’s consider the implications of a faith that is purely personal.
“Religion is a personal thing… it is a choice for each individual to make.” Those of us who’ve spent any time at UCLA have heard that over and over, and you could have read it in the Viewpoint on Sept. 24, 2006 under the title, “Amid religious diversity, belief an individual choice.” This is the highest and most universal moral of on-campus religion. To a majority, faith is like hating carrots or loving broccoli: it has nothing at all to do with true or false, right or wrong. True and false are the realm of science; religious statements are not subject to uncompromising rules of logic as are scientific theories like gravity. But let’s consider the implications of a faith that is purely personal.
If faith is nothing more than a personal choice, you are alone in the world with your faith; by definition, no one else can share it with you. Faith then becomes a solitary cloister that none else can enter; no one else can experience, identify, or agree with you on matters of your personal faith because they can’t share it.
If faith is solely a personal opinion, then it has no real significance to others. It is meaningless to discuss your preference for broccoli with a carrot-lover. If faith is a personal preference, then “discourse” devolves into a meaningless expression of groundless preference. Such are children’s arguments: “Broccoli is better,” “Carrots are better,” “Nuh-uh,” “Ya-huh,”
If faith is solely a personal opinion, then it has no real significance to others. It is meaningless to discuss your preference for broccoli with a carrot-lover. If faith is a personal preference, then “discourse” devolves into a meaningless expression of groundless preference. Such are children’s arguments: “Broccoli is better,” “Carrots are better,” “Nuh-uh,” “Ya-huh,”
But what if faith wasn’t like broccoli? What if it was more like gravity? Have you ever seriously considered it? Before zoning out, humor me for five minutes; it might be funny. What if faith was reasonable? Not a physical science, but subject to laws of logic and reason, like science. Consistent with the law of non-contradiction, such a faith would be universal. Faith would then be a common thing, something that could be experienced the same by different people. Such a faith would be a transcendent thing, existing above the individual, guiding the behavior of all humanity.
Thank you for your consideration. I didn't notice the new guidelines for length (last year was 800 word submission). I've edited it for length and it's now 600 and does cite the Registration Issue. Sdfkjl sdlk
Only when faith is common can it unify us. With common faith, we can be a member of a community that includes others with whom we truly share faith, not just colliding, on a weekly basis, with others of similar personal preference. Then we would not be isolated by our faith, confined in our own souls, but we can genuinely be a member of a society that has common belief, able to really empathize and connect with our fellows on a deep and intimate level.
But who can say what is “True Faith” and what is not? We all can, as rational beings. Reason is the common denominator of Man: black or white, Buddhist or Muslim, we are all rational beings, equal because we are all constrained by the same laws of logic and reason. This is the universal language we can converse in. We cannot speak to each other in our own private language of our feelings, but we can speak to all humanity through reason. “I prefer broccoli” is meaningful for only one person; “Broccoli is nutritious” can speak to all of humanity.
But who can say what is “True Faith” and what is not? We all can, as rational beings. Reason is the common denominator of Man: black or white, Buddhist or Muslim, we are all rational beings, equal because we are all constrained by the same laws of logic and reason. This is the universal language we can converse in. We cannot speak to each other in our own private language of our feelings, but we can speak to all humanity through reason. “I prefer broccoli” is meaningful for only one person; “Broccoli is nutritious” can speak to all of humanity.
Only with a common faith can we truly be freed from the solitude of our own souls. Only with a reasonable faith can we be liberated from personal language, and gain freedom to speak to all of mankind. Someone said it a lot better than me: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Faith is far more beautiful when we can be unified by it in Truth, giving us true community, real goodness, and meaningful discussion.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Website Up!
I've got my website working (mostly). It's got a message board for discussing stuff like you'll find here, links to my (unedited) talks on the Bible (a 30 session survey), and I'm starting to post my old documents (things I've written in the past, submitted editorials, etc.). Check back there and here for more!
www.prothumos.org
www.prothumos.org
The Bible - relevant and powerful
Recently the Daily Bruin ran an article (from another school). This incited a letter to the editor about the irrelevancy and powerlessness of the Bible (can be found here).
I wrote and submitted the following in response:
I wrote and submitted the following in response:
It was not published.
In “Defense of the Bible fails to add up,” (Viewpoint, Nov 29) Jern dismisses the Bible as an irrelevant and worthless “archaic book.” To his credit, Jern does summarize the opinion of a majority at UCLA. Unfortunately, this view is contradicted by many great men who strongly affirm the Bible’s relevancy and value.
George Washington disagrees with the notion that the Bible is irrelevant: “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” Even Jefferson, a Deist, echoes this: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty.”
Francis Bacon, the man who developed the scientific method, valued the Bible to the point of comparing it to science. He said, “Let no man … think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works.” The founding father of science itself believed that it’s at least as valuable to study the Bible as science.
The first president and the author of our Declaration of Independence both believed that the Bible was relevant. Were Washington and Jefferson wrong about the Bible’s relevance to government? The inventor of science said that the Bible was at least as important as science. Did this man of reason grossly miscalculate the Bible’s value?
Or is it possible that they were at least partly right?
Even if you disagree with its Divine origin, it’s simply foolish to dismiss the Bible’s relevancy and value outright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)