Hocus Focus
I awoke this morning at 3am, unable to sleep anymore. Perhaps it was nervousness from having to teach my last ACT class at 9am. Perhaps it was some bizarre biological function which manifested itself as a gnawing pang of hunger despite a full meal the previous evening. I know not what it was, nor what it is as I have not regained Morpheus' realm. Rather than read Anna Karenina, I have been listening to the BBC, NFL Films, MLK -- all whilst browsing online.
So far I've listened to an interview with an historian who helped with Alexander -- and claims it's a moving work of genius -- an interview with Tom Hanks, who proclaims that Van Alsberg's classic is creepy, and the bizarre animation of Polar Express is an homage, not a mistake; and now I see infomericals for home fitness machines on ESPN2. These are most surreal when juxtaposed against MLK's "I have a dream" -- is this his dream? how far have we strayed? is this inevitable? I am, of course, reminded of Haruki Murakami and his near-dystopic vision of present-day Tokyo. Yet, these bleak outlooks belie a more hopeful future. Is all lost if we have such staggering artists as Haruki amongst us? Look hard enough at any picture and you will find the flaws. This does not mean the picture is a bad one, however.
We must remain hopeful for the future. I recall the events of a few weeks ago: Brooks and Cameron asked me if I could give them an answer to their question that would not be depressing -- if global social advocacy were futile, what would you do with your life? I feel I have an answer: absolutely nothing different. I live my life as I wish to live it, hoping that, in some small way, I effect and inject a little hope to the lives of others and myself. I do not delude myself with visions of grand influence; but if I positively impact only one person a day, I have done good. Whether or not I change the grand structure of the world has no bearing on my life's aspirations: I just want to lead a moral, interesting life. I'm at a crossroads now as I'm unsure whether my graduate career will continue. Yet, I remain optimistic: I will live a life I enjoy whatever it may be.
Even if I must leave the official world or science, it will never leave me. This was evinced yesterday morning when I spent several hours trying to create a model of the GRE and testing a corner of parameter space. It was great fun and afforded me some insights. The world provokes thought, and science informs us of how thought may be used to explore the world. Science illuminates not only what we know, but that which we do not: in a dark room you see nothing, but with a single source of light you can see that there exist nooks and crannies not yet explored. For this reason, I took great issue the other day with a SciFi show "Beyond Bizarre". The host took the point of view that because there were things science could not adequately explain, it should be rejected in favor of non-scientific explanations. This is completely antithetical to my own beliefs. If science cannot explain something, it does not betoken a failing of the scientific method; rather it suggests an avenue of further inquiry.
Science is not a thing, but a way. Followers of Taoism are not striving to reach Tao; Tao is merely the way in which they seek -- however asymptotically -- enlightenment. I see science as the same way. We will never -- I hope -- know everything; but science is the way we attempt to explain everything. If something has been fully explained, it should then fall inside the rubric of the scientific method. If it cannot, we need to know more.
Related to this issue is the supposed conflict between religion and science. The two are not fated to butt heads; they do only in a few instances -- like literal interpretations of the Bible. If you believe in God, what's wrong with imagining that he created the universe through some Big Bang process. We have no idea how that happened or why; so there is no conflict there. You could, of course, just say "God did it" and leave it at that. But that would be boring. Wouldn't it be much more interesting to know the means by which God created the universe beyond "with his infinite will"? Wouldn't you gain a richer and more fulfilling picture of God, and his works, by knowing not only is God omnipotent, but awesomely creative? Rather than the universe just appearing, isn't more intriguing to think that God set in motion a complex series of events: the Big Bang, inflation, nucleosynthesis, and more? Doesn't God seem much cooler in this scenario? Maybe I'm just doing what people have always done and imposed their own image on God, but I still think it's much richer than the "God did it; now let's move on" viewpoint that seems to be common.
So far I've listened to an interview with an historian who helped with Alexander -- and claims it's a moving work of genius -- an interview with Tom Hanks, who proclaims that Van Alsberg's classic is creepy, and the bizarre animation of Polar Express is an homage, not a mistake; and now I see infomericals for home fitness machines on ESPN2. These are most surreal when juxtaposed against MLK's "I have a dream" -- is this his dream? how far have we strayed? is this inevitable? I am, of course, reminded of Haruki Murakami and his near-dystopic vision of present-day Tokyo. Yet, these bleak outlooks belie a more hopeful future. Is all lost if we have such staggering artists as Haruki amongst us? Look hard enough at any picture and you will find the flaws. This does not mean the picture is a bad one, however.
We must remain hopeful for the future. I recall the events of a few weeks ago: Brooks and Cameron asked me if I could give them an answer to their question that would not be depressing -- if global social advocacy were futile, what would you do with your life? I feel I have an answer: absolutely nothing different. I live my life as I wish to live it, hoping that, in some small way, I effect and inject a little hope to the lives of others and myself. I do not delude myself with visions of grand influence; but if I positively impact only one person a day, I have done good. Whether or not I change the grand structure of the world has no bearing on my life's aspirations: I just want to lead a moral, interesting life. I'm at a crossroads now as I'm unsure whether my graduate career will continue. Yet, I remain optimistic: I will live a life I enjoy whatever it may be.
Even if I must leave the official world or science, it will never leave me. This was evinced yesterday morning when I spent several hours trying to create a model of the GRE and testing a corner of parameter space. It was great fun and afforded me some insights. The world provokes thought, and science informs us of how thought may be used to explore the world. Science illuminates not only what we know, but that which we do not: in a dark room you see nothing, but with a single source of light you can see that there exist nooks and crannies not yet explored. For this reason, I took great issue the other day with a SciFi show "Beyond Bizarre". The host took the point of view that because there were things science could not adequately explain, it should be rejected in favor of non-scientific explanations. This is completely antithetical to my own beliefs. If science cannot explain something, it does not betoken a failing of the scientific method; rather it suggests an avenue of further inquiry.
Science is not a thing, but a way. Followers of Taoism are not striving to reach Tao; Tao is merely the way in which they seek -- however asymptotically -- enlightenment. I see science as the same way. We will never -- I hope -- know everything; but science is the way we attempt to explain everything. If something has been fully explained, it should then fall inside the rubric of the scientific method. If it cannot, we need to know more.
Related to this issue is the supposed conflict between religion and science. The two are not fated to butt heads; they do only in a few instances -- like literal interpretations of the Bible. If you believe in God, what's wrong with imagining that he created the universe through some Big Bang process. We have no idea how that happened or why; so there is no conflict there. You could, of course, just say "God did it" and leave it at that. But that would be boring. Wouldn't it be much more interesting to know the means by which God created the universe beyond "with his infinite will"? Wouldn't you gain a richer and more fulfilling picture of God, and his works, by knowing not only is God omnipotent, but awesomely creative? Rather than the universe just appearing, isn't more intriguing to think that God set in motion a complex series of events: the Big Bang, inflation, nucleosynthesis, and more? Doesn't God seem much cooler in this scenario? Maybe I'm just doing what people have always done and imposed their own image on God, but I still think it's much richer than the "God did it; now let's move on" viewpoint that seems to be common.