LITTLE LIZARD – BIG LIZARD

I was looking out my window beside my desk when I saw a little lizard on the inside of the screen. This is not infrequent. I think they find it a safe place where there seems to be food enough to keep them healthy. They never seem to be very large. They can be small to mid-size compared larger ones I’ve seen outside. That got me wondering about little lizards compared to big lizards.

All lizards, like other wild reptiles and animals, must spend most of the day looking for something to eat, no grocery stores for them. Little lizards must also avoid being eaten by other beings, like larger lizards. Only the largest lizards do not have this other lizard worry. At some point the little lizards move out of my under-screen environment to the landscaping and sidewalk outside my front door, I suppose.

Every day, all day long, is the same: look for something to eat and avoid being eaten. After a certain amount of time little lizards become bigger and become interested in lizards of the opposite sex. This is part of the process of becoming a big lizard. Big lizards also do not have to worry about being eaten by big lizards, little lizards become a part of the menu, even your own kids.

Are you glad God did not make you a lizard? I wonder if lizards even know they are lizards?

MISINTERPTUTING THE CONSTITUTION

NPR and PBS are arguing that the President can not cut off Government funding according to Amendment One. 

What does the first Amendment found in the Bill of Rights say?

It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It clearly says nothing about Government funding.

This issue is not a Constitutional matter.

INFOSTUFFING EQUALS SKIP-BAIT

I get irritated when an article shows up with an interesting headline but never gets directly to an assertion that the headline makes. Instead many words are stuffed into the front of the article before the “meat” of the article is presented. These stuffing words may be helpful to further explain the main point, or they may be filler words, words of “fluff”, to increase the word count. If they are helpful, they should be presented after the main assertion as further explanation. If the words are not helpful, they should be considered candidates for the trash can.

For example, in a Good Housekeeping article titled “How to Combat Inflammaging, the Aging Side Effect No One Talks About”, the main points were: “get moving, work on your balance, eat right, focus on your waistline, manage stress, spend quality time with others, and get good sleep.” These points were made at the end of the article. Ahead of them was the “word stuffing”. When I saw the “stuffing” I was encouraged not to combat inflammaging, but to write this complaint about this style or writing.

Putting the assertion of the headline at the end of the article, instead of at the front, makes the article itself easy to skip over.

OBLIVION

Anil Seth writes in response to a request from Gardian contributor James Baily: “We do not usually worry much about the oblivion that preceded our birth, so why should we worry about the equivalent oblivion that will follow our death? Oblivion isn’t the experience of absence, it is the absence of experience. As the novelist Julian Barnes put it, in his meditation on mortality, there is ‘nothing to be frightened of.’ ".

That is an interesting concept: “. . . equivalent oblivion that will follow our death . . .”. I agree that, for us, there is an oblivion before our birth since the sperm and egg have not yet knit together, we do not yet exist. But to say there is oblivion after death is a faith statement, an assertion made on presumption. Between those assumed oblivions there exists a life, a life of experience and the build up of skills and knowledge. Dr. Seth lives a life in his own experience. He has attained the status of a Neural Scientist. He has acquired this status through work and interactions with others, including the recorded experiences of other historical humans. Apparently all this will result in oblivion.

Or we can believe there is more to life than our own experience. Heb 11:6 says: "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists . . ." Since God exists, there is no, nor has ever been, oblivion in the sense of nonexistence. God exists, and we exist. We exist because we were created by him. Yet some, for whatever reason, would prefer to think there is no God. We all from the time we were born have lives that will never end. Sadly some will forever wish there was oblivion.

CHOOSING OUR EXPERIENCE

Our involvement in the experience of living as a human can lean or be pushed toward either of two extremes: that of the "World of Device", of the "World of Real Experiences".

The "World of Device" is lived in our phones, our tablets, our computers or the TV and radio. The "World of Real Experience" takes place by being with actual people, or at actual events, or of being in actual nature.

The degree of involvement and participation in either of these Worlds depends on which we lean more towards, on which we spend more time at. In the "World of Devices" we talk on a phone but we only hear a voice. We may do a Video call, but we only hear a voice and see an image. Neither are the actual person, just an electronic representation. The computer gives us only the written word. It can also provide an audio and visual representation of a person or group of people, but none of these is the real person, or group of persons. The TV or radio further separates us by time. What we are seeing or hearing may have taken place at an earlier time than we are experiencing it. The electronic signal we are experiencing may have been edited or otherwise manipulated. Overall, the "World of Devices" can be easier and require less of the expense of our involvement.

In the "World of Real Experience" we: spend more time and money doing it. We may have to travel to other people, or host the other person or people. Once with them we directly use our senses; our sight, our hearing, our smell, our touch, and our taste (whoever experienced the taste of a Zoom dinner or Zoom pot-luck?) We cannot relive the experience except by artificial means like audio or video recording. During the experience we cannot pre-edit what we say, it rarely comes out perfectly. If we write a letter, or a card there is no spellcheck or syntax checking, or grammar suggestions. The "World of Real Experience" requires our direct, immediate involvement.

We can choose our involvement in the experience of living as a human. Do we prefer to draw toward the "World of Device", or the "World of Real Experiences"?