Tagged: philosophy
The Secret to Avoiding Danger
To begin, I learned that an email containing my last blog Special Fourth of July Interview with A Mugwump was not sent. Read it.
For today, read on to reveal the secret.
Censorship is murder. To be a human, as opposed to all other known life forms, requires an unfettered ability to communicate one’s value (in the form of words, images, or music) to other humans. And an external restriction of a person’s expression of value is the same as telling them they have no value. In other words, to censor is a malicious attempt to end the censored’s life.
Defining censorship in this way is meant to cause careful consideration of censorship. Exploring censorship at its most basic level is the only way to get to the root of the issue, by definition.
The fairly recent article, “The Ed Sullivan Show and the (Censored) Sounds of the Sixties”* is the case study in question. In it, Ian Inglis discusses the widely popular Ed Sullivan Show and its unique experiences with censorship. That television show showcased up and coming performers every Sunday night. Popular wisdom states that if a performer appeared on the show, he/she would achieve great material success. The article discusses three now well-known performers and their experiences with Ed Sullivan’s censorship.
First, after being selected to appear on the show, Bob Dylan was asked to perform a totally different song than the one he had planned to perform on the show. Second, the Rolling Stones were asked to change a lyric; they did. Third, The Doors were asked to change a line from one of their songs. They paid lip-service to the request, but when live, they did not change it. Inglis concludes, “Ironically, one consequence of the censorship suffered by all three performers was that their positions were unequivocally enhanced (Inglis 571).”
Inglis rather wordily describes the simple fact that censorship is murder. Each instance demonstrates this perfectly. First look at what happened to the Rolling Stones. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards wrote the song in question, “Let’s Spend the Night Together.” Before their performance, an outside entity changed the lyrics. Logically, though subtlety, this means that while the performers looked similar to the Rolling Stones, they were in fact some other band, some new band. By allowing their lyrics to be changed, in effect, the Rolling Stones murdered themselves for that night. Next, take Bob Dylan. He wouldn’t concede to the censor, so he didn’t perform on the show. It is now clear that The Ed Sullivan show never wanted Bob Dylan to perform. They wanted someone who looked, acted, and sounded like Bob Dylan to perform. When they couldn’t get what they wanted, they murdered him. Finally, take the Doors. Long live the Doors. They played the game, they fooled the “man”, and they played their song, uncensored. The only performers who remained unscathed, then, were the Doors.
In my own life, an even more appalling proof that censorship is murder took place when I was young. My mom censored my sister from the New Kids On The Block “Step By Step” album. To the uninformed, this may not seem like murder. But those of us who are close to the situation know that the New Kids On The Block died after releasing that album. The New Kids On The Block never released another original studio album after “Step By Step.” The five men who made up that group did eventually release more original songs, but under the name NKOTB instead. How can this be explained except to say that censorship is murder?
The question remaining is why did Ed Sullivan and my mom choose to murder these performers? To discover the answer, we must turn inward. Violence is often committed against those who we find threatening. Murder is the fullest expression of violence and is resorted to when all other attempts fail. Time and time again we see that if humans feel they are in danger, they remove the danger. If necessary, they remove the danger through violence. What danger can possibly exist in the form of words, music, and/or images? In and of themselves, they are unable to physically harm a person. Therefore, the danger in question must be regarding the mind. A short story can help explain the deficiencies in this way of thinking.
Aircraft pilots are people who professionally deal with avoiding death on a daily basis. To draw the metaphor, we could say they professionally deal with avoiding danger of any sort. This is very different than most other professions. But it is common knowledge within the aviation community that at the end of the day a pilot really just wants to have successfully completed the same number of landings as takeoffs. The point being that a pilot counts success as being alive at the end of each daring flight, not whether or not some particular mission was accomplished.
Pilots avoid danger. Censors believe they protect people from danger. It should prove very instructive, then, to learn how pilots avoid danger. Pilots avoid danger, not by actively avoiding danger. Over time, the community of pilots discovered that if they attempted to avoid danger, they only compounded the danger already inherent to human flight. Instead, they fly correctly. They focus their energy on learning the right way to fly. Naturally, this matches the safest way, but it is important to note that pilots think in ‘correct vs. incorrect’ not ‘safe vs. dangerous’ terms.
Regarding words/music/images, the same principle should be applied. Artist’s (people) should not be censored because their art may cause harm. They should be encouraged to achieve their fullest potential. Regardless of whether the work is appropriate or inappropriate, it may have value. The only way to measure the value is to determine its quality. Ancient wisdom would have us believe that there is a time and place for everything. Rather than focus on the–as demonstrated by pilots–ineffective idea that danger can be avoided if it is censored, how much better informed could a population be if it only cared about quality?
Returning to the thesis then, we need to remind ourselves that what we’re really discussing is freedom and value. If Ed Sullivan would have simply acknowledged those three performers had value and the public wanted to see them, not look-a-likes, the results would have been untainted. As it stands, the saying, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” rues the day. Would those three performers have had such success if no censorship attempt was made? Probably. So the fool, then, is Ed Sullivan. The fool, then, is the censor. Humans require the freedom to communicate their value. Inherent to the act of censorship is the death of this freedom to communicate. Furthermore, we have seen that censorship does not—cannot—deter any coming danger.
*INGLIS, I. (2006), The Ed Sullivan Show and the (Censored) Sounds of the Sixties. The Journal of Popular Culture, 39: 558–575. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5931.2006.00279.x
Special Fourth of July Interview with A Mugwump
I’m excited to tell you all that I had an opportunity to interview A Mugwump this morning. I thought it was a fascinating conversation, but you judge for yourself.
Captain’s Log – How many ways can we spend money?
A Mugwump – Just two. The two ways we can spend our money are by choice or by compulsion.
CL – What is money?
AM – The dictionaries are wrong on this one. Big time. It’s not complicated. Money is a language. Unlike say, English which can communicate the breadth of the human experience, money can only communicate one thing. Money can only communicate value. Money is a language that communicates one thing. Money communicates value. That’s it. All the talk about recessions, depressions, inflation, the 99%, the 1%, Wall Street, Main Street, all of that is meaningless. Money is a language that communicates value.
CL – Are you saying that people with money are more valuable than people without money?
AM – No. This point is tricky, so pay attention. Money is only money when it is in motion. A dollar in my pocket is not a dollar. It is a piece of paper that looks like a dollar. When I take it out to purchase something, as I hand it to the seller, it transforms into money. It transforms into a communication of value. Whether we have a lot of money or no money has nothing to do with our value. When we choose to spend money, we communicate to others what we value. As I said, money in motion is the language we use to express value.
CL – Okay then, let’s return to the two ways we can spend our money, what is communicated when we choose to spend our money?
AM – When we spend our money by our own choice, we come to an agreement with the seller of the goods as to the value of the product or service. In short, when we choose to spend our money we communicate how much we value the product or service. If we think a particular TV is worth $300 and the person with the TV thinks it is worth $300, we hand over the $300 dollars and the seller hands us the TV. The money transferred communicates the agreed upon value of the TV.
CL – And what about when we are compelled?
AM – It is not the same when we talk about being compelled to spend our money. When we are compelled to spend our money, that money does not communicate the value of a product or service. Instead, when we are compelled to spend our money, the money communicates how much we think we’re worth as an individual. The money that an armed-robber forces us to give him was freely given to us in exchange for the value of a specific application of our time, skill, and/or energy. The armed-robber is giving us nothing of value in return for our money. Therefore, when we pay the armed-robber everything we have to stay alive, we’ve just communicated that we think our time, skill, and energy, in other words, our life, has no value. And the act of paying everything–our time, our skill, and our energy (our life)–to stay alive is another way to define slavery.
CL – Slavery, huh? It sounds like you may be describing the government as an armed-robber. What do you think a government is?
AM – No, you misunderstand. The government is not an armed-robber. It does offer certain valuable things, which a private market cannot, in exchange for our money. What do I think a government is? To my mind, a description that fits all governments that have ever existed, in all time periods, for all cultures, for all nations, would have to be, “Other people making some of our decisions for us.” That is what a government is. A government is nothing more than another person or group of people making some of our decisions for us. I say “some” of our decisions because that’s what this is all about. How many of our decisions should a government make for us? That’s what we are constantly deciding in this life. To me, less is better. But I can see how others might not want the responsibility of decision-making, so they might want others to make the decisions for them.
CL – Of all days, why agree to this interview today?
AM – Today, July 4th, 2013, is a fitting day to remind people of the nature of things. America is the only group we’re all apart of today. And if your readers are anything like me, they know they have value. As a matter of fact, even if they’re nothing like me, I believe they have value. I believe this, not because I have any special knowledge, but because in order to secure my freedom, I must believe and act on the idea that everyone has value. I must act on the idea that no matter who we are, no matter what our background, no matter what mistakes we’ve made, we have value. It’s Independence Day. A holiday helping us remember that our country was founded because citizens disagreed with how/how much of their money they were compelled to spend. In other words, they believed they should be making more decisions than their government let them. It was founded because people believed they were worth more than their government thought. If we want to spend our money as we please, if we want the amount of money we’re compelled to spend to be as little as possible, we need to be reminded that we all have value. Everyone has value.
A Letter To My Friend (That I Hope To Write)
To My Friend,
We’ve known each other for some time now. We’ve seen how we each live, how we each make decisions, how we each handle problems. More than most, you’ve seen my relationships with women unfold.
I’m writing to you now because a new day has dawned. People like us, we’re different. Our brains maintain a tighter grip on information than most. We have been given all the tools necessary to accomplish great things in this life, you and I. That’s just a fact. We also know that leading a family must be one of those things. It is a timeless tradition that must be honored by all men aspiring to greatness. There is no escaping this feeling. We’re surrounded by weak men holding their hands out, expecting help. They’ve got it wrong. We’re the ones who give help, not receive help.
The point is, we made it this far, and owe it to everyone, literally everyone, to use the rest of our time to be an example.
Some maladjusted part within us wants us to believe that if a woman would have us, then she could be the one. First hand experience however, tells us that nothing could be further from the truth. First hand experience also tells us that that’s not enough. That’s why I’m writing this letter. We need to help each other stay focused on the goal. Alone, the future is bleak. Together, we can lead a revival.
Only because of you am I confident to share the news. You reminded me of something I once knew; something that over the last several years I repressed, hid, denied, and pretended to forget. You reminded me that I, too, believe ideal women exist. I, too, believe in women of such high quality that they seem unearthly. I’m talking about a quality so rare that it is only whispered about. I believe in ideal women who possess so much more than the ability to attract. My friend, we’ve always hoped we were right. Now I am certain we were, because I found mine. I hope this letter brings you good fortune, and motivates you to stay the course.
Your Friend,
A Mugwump
Grandparents Wanted
“Now that we know who is doing what, it’s time for the prepared speeches portion of the meeting. Each of our speakers today has prepared what I’m sure will be marvelous speeches. First up, giving her ‘Ice Breaker’ speech, is Debbie Hinkletoe. She has spoken many times in the past, but this is her first speech with us. It appears we are making her feel as nervous as Anne Frank practicing tuba, so let’s be sure to give her all the support we can muster,” joked the old man lovingly attempting ease Debbie’s visible nerves.
It was unclear whether the old man knew that the joke would, to put it mildly, step on a few toes. The few audience members cursed with the inability to resist a joke’s cue-to-laugh recognized their loneliness and quickly adopted silence.
Concluding the awkward moment, a respectable old woman declared, “Not funny.”
“Okay, meetings over. Thanks for nothing, you inconsiderate asshole!” seemed the words the audience expected to hear next. However, following General Waverly’s (White Christmas) advice, “If there’s one thing the army taught me, it was to be positive… …especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about,” the old man made the correct decision to let the moment pass and continue the meeting.
He couldn’t help but smile. He just witnessed an event only found in books: An old man putting to use his well-deserved ability to “not care”, and an old woman responding in kind. Oh, the subtleties of that moment. As if the back-and-forth had caused the air to congeal, a stillness overtook the room for but an instant. Neither mortal would yield. Neither should have. They both behaved perfectly. They both…were grandparents.
He always liked “grandparents” as a group, but he was never quite able to put his finger on why; until that exact moment.
But first, while it may seem obvious, the reader must learn what he believed a grandparent to be. A grandparent is not simply someone whose children have had children. By his thinking, to be a grandparent, one’s children must be (or have) raising their own children. Biological grandparents fulfilling the role of primary parent are not grandparents to him, then. This is a necessary qualification.
It seemed to him that something magical happened when an old person was fully released from parental responsibilities. The concern for ‘appropriate’ and ‘proper’ disappeared, rightfully so. Grandparents, then, were the living proof that even the loftiest concepts needed to be knocked off their pedestals every now and again. It was the exchange between these grandparents that revealed this truth clearly.
This realization had a second effect. It motivated him, for he was a parent. Moreover, he now understood that to earn his status as grandparent he must aggressively embrace his parental responsibility. Any wasted time or opportunity would only result in his missing out on the ability to someday be the salt of life, would result in his missing out on the near-sanctified duty to offend, provoke, insult, but also spoil, entertain, love.
More than that, he finally understood why, no matter what they did, he always felt loved by his own grandparents. It was because they wouldn’t be his grandparents if his parents hadn’t loved him first.
How Long Until We Learn? 12 Years? 20 Years? Never?
“Does everyone understand?” the professor asked. She just finished explaining a nuance regarding citations in academic writing. “Once more then, common knowledge doesn’t need to be cited, but other than that, it’s best to cite the source of your material. For example, that Pearl Harbor was attacked on December…9th..?” Snickers from the class. “…was it the 9th?” she begged for help.
“7th,” he spoke up. “December 7th.”
“That’s right, thank you. Now you all know that I don’t ‘do’ dates very well,” she joked.
“And that you don’t love your country,” he remarked half-joking, but seeking a status increase in his classmate’s eyes as well.
“Haha. Yes, apparently that too,” she laughed, genuinely appreciating the comment.
His helmet on and secure, he slowly backed the motorcycle out of its parking spot as he prepared to head home from class. Recognizing that a motorcyclist’s every movement is exposed, he concentrated on making his scan for obstacles look as cool as possible.
Finally, he was on the road. Warm air, no seat belt; he was one with the machine. “This will never get old,” he thought to himself. Seeing brake lights in front of him he looked up to see yellow become red. Downshifting, he slowed to a stop. The car in front of him had a sticker that caught his attention. It simply read, “9-11-01.” He couldn’t place the date. Adam and Eve themselves couldn’t describe the shame he felt as he realized his mistake. How many times did it have to happen until he learned that pride comes before the fall? Less than 10 minutes after enjoying a good laugh at the professors expense for not remembering the date Pearl Harbor was attacked, he didn’t recognize a sticker whose purpose was to help us never forget the events of September 11, 2001.
Frustrated he rode the rest of the way home analyzing how this could have happened. Suddenly, an interesting thought: “Wow. It has been 12 years. I wonder how everyone felt in 1953 about Pearl Harbor, compared to how we feel now about 9/11. I always hear about how great the 50s were… Will people in 2073 look back and romanticize this decade too?” It seemed unlikely.
**
Insecurity. Individuals feel it, nations feel it. In either case, it is a problem that should be stomped out as ferociously as possible. The attack on 9/11 spoke to life’s uncertainty. How long are we going to pretend that this was new information? No living thing is free from a risk of dying. Why are we still insecure?
Given the occasion to ‘get the jump’ on the yearly discussion, I don’t mind taking the first stab. We’re still insecure because we don’t understand where security comes from.
Here’s the situation as I see it: After taking until the mid-1980s to repress Vietnam’s memory, we built a military of overwhelming strength. The end of the 80s saw the end of The Cold War. Less than a few years later, we literally obliterated Iraq’s military during Gulf War One. (Our pilots were shooting down Iraqi pilots before they could retract their landing gear on takeoff.) This victory made it impossible to resist feeling invulnerable.
The trouble, however, was that the “we” that became invulnerable included the greatest generation. By 9/11, “we” no longer included the greatest generation or their experience-based (vs secondhand) knowledge and wisdom. What did they know that would have helped us? What might we have learned from existing with them, rather than reading about them? What information do we need to internalize so we can rid ourselves of the wasting disease called insecurity?
Security comes from within.
It won’t come from Obama. It wouldn’t have come from Romney. It won’t come from Clinton or Christie.
Whether Hippocrates ever intended his paraphrased oath to be applied by everyone is inconsequential. “Do no knowing harm.” That goes for everyone. All the time. Whether at work or at play. In your personal life, in your professional life.
Is life complicated? Yes. Has our government acted honorably all the time? No. Do people capitalize on every opportunity to take advantage of each other? Yes. These questions and answers do not paint a pretty picture. So what. Not one of them has any bearing on the decision you are about to make right now.
The only way to overcome this problem is to stop doing knowing harm. Today. No matter who is telling you, “It’s okay.” Whatever consequence you fear will happen if you disobey, you must risk it. Past mistakes are irrelevant. The rest of the planet is longing for Americans to wisely use the power we hold. You know what I’m talking about. You can’t feign ignorance any longer.
I need your help. The only way to get there is together.
Conservative’s Reason
“Chopper down,” the radio sputtered. This was a first. In the worst way. After all, this was supposed to be an ordinary mission. There was no added danger this night. There certainly was no reason to have expected this.
“We have to go get them! I’ll start running the ‘Before Takeoff Checklist,” the flight engineer suggested excitedly. This was difficult to stomach. There are some guys who just want to get into the ‘action’. He was one of those guys. I, on the other hand, was not. I remember my uncle, who was in the Navy, describing how once a helicopter caught fire as it landed on the ship. He recounted how so many guys ran towards the fire. A Sunday stroll was the pace he chose. That always stuck with me.
“Sir, do you want me to let them know the helicopter needs to be destroyed once everyone is clear?” asked the aircraft commander. The unit commander was on board this particular mission. He sometimes sat in the back of the helicopter to make sure he didn’t lose touch with what’s really going on as he only watches the missions on a screen most other days. Again, I was shocked. Wow. This is getting real, really fast.
The flight engineer pushed again for achieving ‘hero status’ in one mission, so finally I addressed him. “Look, we don’t even know what happened. If they were shot down, it probably isn’t the smartest thing to go fly into range of that weapon, is it?”
Confusion like this was relatively rare. But as pilots have a knack for analyzing past mistakes to avoid making them again, we knew what to do. We called it the ‘conservative response rule.’ This was a helpful tool to use in cases of disagreement among the crew. Basically, past aircraft mishaps revealed that when there is disagreement, the more conservative option voiced should be followed until more data can be gathered.
In the above example, one crew-member wanted to fly, the other wanted to wait. The more conservative idea was to wait, therefore we waited. Waited only until more information was available.
That’s the key to this rule. Even the name ‘conservative response rule’, brings to mind always doing the conservative thing, but that’s a severe misunderstanding which can hamstring entire missions. There are times during flights that being aggressive and daring is the right decision. The point of this rule is to make sure everyone is in agreement that selfless bravery is called for. If there is not agreement, stick to the conservative course of action until more information is available.
What’s the practical application to grounded life? Outdoor activities come to mind. How many times have we been with friends and disagreement shows up about what to do next? Say, climbing a mountain as a storm is brewing. Some want to continue, because they say the storm will surely pass. Others suggest turning back. Friendships have been lost over such situations.
As for me, I say stick with the pilots. Turn back or at least wait a while to see how the storm develops. Dead aircrew are longing for you to learn from their mistakes.
Unlike other ‘lessons learned’, this one has a specific audience. Within each of our friend groups, there are those who are natural leaders. If this is you, next time there is disagreement, put this rule to good use. Besides enhancing your status (rightfully so), it just might keep people and relationships intact.
How To Be The Best Ever
(If you’re short on time, skip to the bottom for numbered instructions.)
Whoa there! Slow down a minute. Have you really considered what you’re doing?
You know who you are. You’re the one believing that you really do excel at one particular skill. You’re so confident that you could be the best ever at it, that you are on the verge of totally restructuring your life in order to prove it to the world.
If there’s not one confusing thing about life, there’s another. Take definitions for a moment. They can be descriptive or prescriptive. If you’re like me and strive to always exist in the present, you likely find yourself drawn to descriptive definitions. If you’re not like me and you prefer to live in a fantasy world, you’re likely drawn to prescriptive definitions. For example, dictionary.com defines “peace” as “the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.” That is a prescriptive definition. Howard Bloom, crazy thinker that he is, suggests a more descriptive definition. Starting as a Tabula Rasa, he writes “peace” usually means, “‘Since I’m on top, let’s keep the status quo;’ or ‘Now that I’ve managed to climb on your back, would you please be kind enough to sit still'” (Bloom 265).*
Reading over dictionary.com’s definition is quite comical if it is supposed to be descriptive. The ‘normal’ condition of the world. Right.
Back to you, though. Here you are. The best ever. But no one knows it. We don’t need sources to know what being the best is. It is simply being better at something than everyone else. With 20/20 hindsight, let’s see what we can learn by looking at how a couple of people who are arguably the best ever did it.
I’m thinking specifically of Michael Jordan and Lance Armstrong. If you haven’t watched MJ’s Hall of Fame speech, what you need to know is that it disappointed most people. Not me. I took notes. Here was someone who was the best ever. How did he do it? I wanted to know.
Next we have Lance Armstrong. Even more than MJ, Lance Armstrong solidified his place in history as the best ever.
But we’re talking about you. So without further ado, here are the instructions.
Instructions for How To Be The Best Ever:
Step 1 – Forsake everything, literally every other thing in your life if it doesn’t help you become the best ever.
Step 2 – Believe, really believe that when you finally get the recognition you so desire, it will have been worth it.
A Reading’s Surprise
Staring at the small, basic kitchen table that doubled as his computer stand, he just sat. It wasn’t ideas that he wanted, but help. Was this everything? Could this really be how life was supposed to play out?
Only moments earlier he had such hope, such expectation. Now, he only felt resignation and frustration. “Curse you, World!”
Believe it or not, he was upset because he couldn’t believe what he had just read…about definitions. That’s right, he had just read that there are apparently at least two different types of definitions from where the defense of an argument can be mounted. The first being, stipulative definitions or what really should be called creative or inventive definitions. The second, categorical definitions.
The book stated that categorical definitions differ from stipulative in that they focus on classifying ideas in categories (hence, “categorical”). For clarity, here is a categorical definition of motorcycling: one of the many types of transportation available to modern man. On the other hand, this is a stipulative definition of motorcycling: the greatest way to travel from one place to another.
No, this just won’t do. By his thinking, there should just be one type of definition. There should be only one clean, nice, simple way of making sense of the world. That’s what this is all about, isn’t it? That’s the point of defining a concept, right? The point of a definition is to organize what an individual sees or believes to be into a set of data that can help fulfill life’s potentialities, right?
As if life wasn’t difficult enough, he now had to deal with this new information that even the very tool he had been using to define his reality couldn’t be simplified down to one type of meaning. How was anyone supposed to get any work done in this madness?! He must change this. Life cannot require this level of complexity.
His first task, then, was to get everyone to agree on everything.
Are You Singing?
How can He hear us, if I can’t?
You should understand that I believe that in this world that God created, everything that happens is part of God’s plan. Everything. The good, the bad — everything. How could it not be? The catch is we, the humans, are always able to change what is happening, to improve it or maybe to take a step back and say, “Hmm, maybe this was a mistake.” It is an enormous amount of responsibility.
Anyone who knows me knows I love Metallica. Their music demands to be performed on electric guitars and amplified drums. I think most would agree that all heavy metal should be amplified. It’s kind of the nature of the beast.
Anyone who knows me knows I also love classical music. Classical music (classical meaning ‘the best’) is written for acoustic instruments, and rightly so. Something magical happens when music is acoustic. Something so magical, that over the years many have remarked that classical music is surely the voice of God. I have always liked this metaphor if only because it highlights that music is a universal language.
I’d like to take the metaphor a bit further. If mankind was created in God’s own image, and music can have the effect of sounding like the voice of God, what about when we sing? Wouldn’t our “made in God’s image” voices actually sound closer to how God’s voice sounds? (Assuming of course, that He has a voice.)
I point this out because, again, in my recent visits to a church, I have been perplexed by the changes. There is an amplified band singing, words are displayed on the screen, no written music is anywhere to be found, and I can hardly hear anyone over the band, save the person standing next to me. (Great voice, btw.) It most certainly is not music to my ears.
Worship via music is one of the main reasons I see for going to church. I have always liked singing in a large group. I liked it as a kid at church, I liked it in the Air Force on those special occasions, and I like the idea of it now. I think singing, especially large groups of men singing, is just great. Doesn’t everyone?
I think I know what is going on. I bet that over the years, like in all other areas of life, people’s enthusiasm has been waning. Who wants other people to hear that they can’t sing a note? It does take some energy to sing, too, and we’re inherently lazy. So at first the music leader’s volume gets turned up, the thinking being that it might encourage more people to sing if they aren’t afraid of being heard. Then a band is introduced instead of a piano or organ. Now we can all pretend that we’re singing, and no one will ever know the difference. At least that’s how I see it.
As for me, I want people to sing out loud. I want to sing out loud. I want to feel the power in the music. I want to hear the voice of God. I want guests to visit and feel the inescapable love that is expressed when a group of like-minded people worship with music.
The easy answer is to find another church. Should this be about easy though? I don’t know. I just don’t know.
If I was a pastor, I’d want to hear the congregation sing. I’d use it like a thermometer. I think even the most accurate digital thermometer would tell a pastor of churches like I described above, “Meh. Lukewarm.”
But that’s just me. What do you think?
How To Use A White Board
(If you’re short on time, skip to the bottom for numbered instructions.)
According to Malcolm X’s autobiography, he constantly scribbled little idea-notes on any and everything all the time. While I found that part of his personality fascinating, it wasn’t enough to convince me that I should follow suit. Later, I watched Some Kind of Monster where I saw Metallica using a white board to capture creative impulses before they escape. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn that a white board was hanging on my wall within days.
I immediately put it to good use. Any idea accompanied by a, “This is brilliant! I need to make sure I don’t forget it!” feeling was recorded on my white board. I was rather vain about it. Scratch that, I am rather vain about my white board.
Thinking about Malcolm X’s little notes and Metallica’s colorful white board is always inspiring to me. Seeing my own white board covered in ideas makes me feel good about myself. Over the last several years of recording my ideas, however, I’ve come to realize that I like something even more than looking at a white board teeming with my ideas. Erasing those ideas.
Yes, erasing my ideas. I would have never guessed this, but in retrospect it makes sense. Reflect on this for a moment. What is the point of capturing ideas in writing anyhow? The point is not to simply write them down. Nothing magical happens because a good idea is recorded. Something magical happens, though, when a good idea is acted upon. I’ll go further and also argue that the same magical something happens when what appeared to be a good idea is permanently discarded.
And whether you’ve acted on a good idea or decided it wasn’t that great, regarding the white board, the end result is the same. It is erased.
Everything begins as an idea. *Begins* If you use a white board to record ideas for later use, when is the last time you erased it? When is the last time you made decisions about the ideas? If it’s been a while, you may be misunderstanding how to use a white board. No worries, that’s why I’m here. Simply follow the below instructions, and you’ll be in back on track in no time.
Instructions for How to Use a White Board:
Step 1 – Write possibly brilliant idea on it.
Step 2 – Act on idea or Discard idea.
Step 3 (Most Important) – Erase idea.
Captain’s Log 