Thursday, December 14, 2017

Enjoying this song right now:


Today I took a huge blow to my contentment, and I struggled a lot all day in order to be happy and interested in my work. However, some good things happened today as well, which, when combined, really contributed to me not losing my mind, and eventually to me sort-of recovering. I still don't feel completely myself, but almost.

For starters, Dan and Chowon both called me right after the thing happened, which was the first event of the morning after I'd showered and such. Both of them encouraged me a lot, though I was still very much reeling when I was on the phone with Dan, so it was awkward when I ran out of things to say about it.

Then my composer friend HDJR2 (shout out) responded to my questions about art, and his response was really thoughtful and insightful. (He didn't say this directly, but his comments lead me to conclude that) the "human element" I was looking for isn't found in methods or structures of art that are so esoteric that they become subjective, but rather it is found in the inspiration, which is from God. All humans have a need to be in community with God, and every good thing is from God, so a good piece of art is inspired by God, and that's how it bridges the gap between people. So, he said that if I want to experiment with styles that's fine, but that I shouldn't burden myself with trying to add structure if it isn't what I feel inspired to do. Overall, it was really encouraging. I seriously consider it an honor to be friends with him; it's a privilege I don't deserve.

Then I had a great conversation with God on my way to work. I pulled off to a place in the desert where there wasn't much traffic, and I realized that it's the first time in several years that I have really felt alone and not in danger of being interrupted by anyone. It's a special feeling that I took for granted when I used to live near large patches of nature where I could go and hide. God's responses to my prayers really helped me to process the situation today.

Then at work I got another phone call from Chowon, wherein she let me know about the good things happening with her these days, and I was so blessed to hear the happiness in her voice. What a treasure she is! I've found a jewel worth more than all of my material wealth.

And finally, despite my sudden and sharp disinterest with this place, my work tonight was engaging. I had breaks at times which were incidentally appropriate, and my attention was captured right when I needed to be distracted again.

God definitely heard my prayers tonight, and he has orchestrated the day in a way that comforts me supremely.

Even so, there's fog in the road ahead of me. I have no idea what the next two months will look like, but I know what my immediate next steps have to be. Just a few hours ago I was terrified of it. Now, glory to the Most High King, I am reconciled with my fear.

This will be an adventure.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

This is a long one! I've been working on it for a few days. Since I've been on the Christian Nationalism kick for a little while now, and it's what's on my mind a lot, I've been thinking about the implications of Christians thinking that America is a "Christian Nation", how it affects Christians and how it affects atheists (in particular).

Quickly before I dive into that, I want to note something else I've been thinking about. (one paragraph, I promise). I've been thinking about what it means to be an unbalanced Christian, and whether or not that's necessarily synonymous with breaking the status quo. It seems to me that some of the most effective modern teachers, who really got a following, were thematically predictable. That doesn't necessarily mean they were unbalanced, (speaking especially with regard to Christian speakers), but just that they had a specific message that they wanted to make sure everyone heard. For example, there was that guy who made Salvation Mountain in California; his mountain has been declared a national treasure, and what a great work of art it is! I think that the Gospel absolutely must be a part of my message, but I wonder if thematically committing to a certain aspect of the gospel (like "repentance", or "salvation by faith", or "God is love", or "God is King") is something that would be beneficial as a choice that I could make in hopes of delivering a culturally impactful message.

Anyway! (see, it was just one paragraph....sort of) Here's the thought experiment I wanted to do. Just to be clear, I don't represent anyone but myself, but I'm going to do my best to put myself into other's shoes for the sake of argument.

I. How are Christians affected by themselves holding the belief that America is a Christian nation? I submit that, if America is presently a "Christian nation", then one of four things must be true about it:

1a. Its laws and leadership are currently Biblical.
2a. Its laws and leadership are currently in the process of being successfully and intentionally conformed to Biblical standards by the Christian majority in the country.
3a. Compromise is a Biblical act; there are so many gray areas in the Biblical definition of justice that we can't know what is right; or the Bible is impossible to interpret with clarity on issues relating to the American government.
4a. Reforming laws to make them more Biblical is impossible because the whole world is on the road to utter desolation. America is just as good as it gets.

About #4: my experience tells me that this is actually a very common perspective. It's ironic, though, because of America's history wherein it went from being totally without God to being the most legally presbyterian nation in the world around the years 1600-1900 after Christ. So, if 1600-1900 years after Christ, then why not 2000-2300 years after Christ? When did the world stop becoming more Christian, and how does that late change in direction fit in with any mainstream eschatological system? Anyway, America's history alone, I think, disproves a pessimistic premillenial view of history, and a more recent look at things demonstrates the unfortunate self-fulfilling nature of such views. If we think that America is doomed, then why would we put any effort into righting it?

So none of the above four things is true, but I submit that in order for a person to think that the United States is a "Christian nation", the person must believe at least one of them to be true. I think the behavioral manifestation of such a belief would be the following in order:

1b. The person who believes this will attempt to maintain the status quo no matter what.
2b. The person who believes this must really trust the people making the laws, but isn't making active comparisons between new laws and scripture. I just don't see it. Even when we elect a nominally Christian president, as soon as he's in office he seems to stop caring about stopping abominable things like the shedding of innocent blood (abortion) or the desecration of holy matrimony.
3b. This person is a jellyfish. As far as I can tell, there's no warrant for this kind of thinking in scripture.
4b. The person who believes this will be preparing for the end of freedom in America, and may make attempts to stop it. But from what I've seen, solutions offered as part of those attempts often take the form of not-directly-Biblical "moral" solutions or temporary bandages intended to postpone the inevitable destruction of their way of life. I hear a lot of these people saying, "Let's return to the constitution", and the constitution is a very fine document, but it isn't exactly the Bible, so the more I think about this, I increasingly view it as a kind of pandering to the idea that we need to establish a religiously neutral country.

OK, so conclusion for set "I" (this is by far the longest section): If the majority of Christian lawmakers fall into categories 1-4, then even if they are all in the same party (let's say republican because that seems to be the stereo-case), they will not be able to make any legal changes toward a more Biblical system, because none of the above groups is actually looking at scripture to decide what the laws should be. At best, group 4 is reflecting on scripture to decide how the laws should be.

II. On the other hand, how does it affect Christians if they do not believe that America is a Christian nation. I can think of three behavioral outcomes:

1a. Change America to make it a Christian nation.
2a. Leave
3a. Ignore it; we live in Rome, so let's pay taxes to Caesar.
4a. Hole up because we're doomed (analogous to I.4)

The above said, it's important to note that all groups of God-fearing Christians will spread the gospel, and so they all do their part to make America more Christian in the ultimately most effective way, by spreading the ideology. More on that later, maybe, but what I'm focusing on in this train of thought relates to my personal conviction that we should take our beliefs to their logical ends and then try to live consistently with those ends. If the ends are logically or physically impossible, then our beliefs probably are not aligned with reality. So, when I say "Change America to make it a Christian nation", I mean conform the laws to God's law.

Implications:
1b. This is what I'm proposing.
2b. Really not helpful for America, and I don't suppose anywhere else is necessarily better or worse than here in terms of the ability of the populace to recreate its government according to Scripture.
3b. Here's the jellyfish option.
4b. Basically the same comments as on I.4b

III. How does it affect atheists if Christians think that America is a Christian nation?

I couldn't think of good bullet points for this one, so just a paragraph: As long as Christians fall into categories I.1-4, we can bet that they won't get anything done, so basically an atheist in this position will just have to wait until the next antichrist gets elected and pick up where they left off.

Furthermore, a large concentration of politically unproductive Christians actually helps atheists to refine their views and strengthen their atheism by having solid disputes with Christians, but without fear that the Christian will succeed in making any actual changes to laws if they win the argument.

IV. How does it affect atheists if Christians don't think that America is a Christian nation?

1. If Americans fall into categories II.2-4, then atheists have nothing to worry about outside of the simple spread of the gospel.
2. Every American who falls into category II.1 is now a threat to every unBiblical argument, and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God. These Christians will make actual attempts at producing laws which are directly in line with scripture (a revolutionary goal, as the entire government will have to be reshaped eventually).

V. Now, just for fun, what about atheists who think that America is a Christian nation? (these are more-or-less the same for atheists who don't think so). I see two options:

1. Be happy about it. So far, the "Christian country U.S.A." has functioned rather equitably.
2. Be unhappy about it. Many atheists (and I say "many" in order to be careful, but I've never met an atheist who didn't) suppose that we should make it our goal to be unbiased in every consideration. The V2 group therefore seems to think that if we pretend to have unbiased views when we consider things like morality, justice and law, we will somehow end up with a majority advocating the best possible solution for any problem, in the Darwinian sense. (That is, the best thing for the species. might makes right, and the populace is god, etc). These atheists say that we should have a national government free from individuals with any tendency toward religious consideration when making laws at all, so they will actively try to limit the people holding office to being either atheists or jellyfish.

Alright, that's it. What was the point?

Honestly, the way I see it, atheists would help their cause by doing their best to maintain the illusion that America is a Christian nation. No tricks or lies here -- I'm a Christian, and so help me God I'm writing what I really think is the truth.

And Christians, stop lying to yourselves! America will be a Christian nation when its Law is the scripture. As an illustration of the differences, how many pages of federal tax code alone are there? Imagine if someone had to do a public reading of it with explanations. How long would it take? People spend 8 years in school getting degrees on tiny facets of the law because no common man could ever read through the entire thing. But Biblical leaders like Josiah (2 Kings 23) and Ezra (Nehemiah 8) read the law to the people and they understood. Who in the world could read American law to Americans, much less have them understand it? I only say this as a broad-brushing way to contrast Biblical law with American law. Americans, the U.S.A is not a "Christian nation", but it is not beyond hope. Let's advocate Biblical standards of justice in our land!

"Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?...He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 'As for me, I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.'"

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Christmas time is just around the corner! I love Christmas. Everywhere I go I hear music about Jesus Christ. It's unavoidable! Let's revel in it, and do our best to perpetuate it. Let's take pleasure in the voices and decorations put out even by unbelievers, hostile to the very thing they celebrate when they sing "Joy to the world" What do they sing right after that? Why should the world be joyful? Because "The Lord has come! Let earth receive her King!" I hear people of all stripes singing "O Holy Night" and following it up with an explanation of the proper response: "Fall on your knees! O hear the angel voices!" Why? "O night when Christ was born!" Hallelujah! Sing it with me America. Consider the king that you now welcome into authority over this world! Praise God all creatures here below! I just wanna shout every time I hear one of those songs on a nonChristian radio station or in a store somewhere.

"God rest ye merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay."

Why?

"Remember Christ our savior was born on Christmas day, to save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray. Oh tidings of comfort and joy!"

Let's think about that, though. Joy to the world, the Lord has come. Let earth receive her king. The Bible describes the Lord as being our owner, having bought covenant Israel out of slavery to Egypt we are now slaves of Christ (Ephesians 6:6,Colossians 3:24,1 Peter 2:16, Romans 6:15-23). Why should we be joyful about the establishment of a monarchy, when this is the same Jesus who spoke face to face with Moses inside the tent of meeting (Exodus 33:11, and it could only have been Jesus because Jesus says that nobody has ever seen the Father except the Son, John 1:18, 6:46). It's the same Jesus who John tells us was seen by Isaiah when Isaiah famously said “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Isaiah 6, John 12:40-41).

This Jesus who we are joyful about is the same Lord who gave the law of the OT and called it His standard of righteousness. It's the same Jesus to whom the Father said, "Ask me and I will give you all nations as your inheritance", and who then later told us, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them and baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.". Why are we joyful about that?

It's because Jesus absorbs the penalty for our sins, fulfilling the law and purchasing us from slavery to sin and death, so that we are now slaves of Christ. And Jesus, being in authority, will now begin to exercise His perfect kingship, which we know and trust will be better than any earthly government, because God will grow his righteous government and peace, as it says in Isaiah 9:6-7

"For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon[d] his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called[e]
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
    to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this."

We know that the law of the government about which Isaiah speaks is the very same law that Jesus is talking about when he says, "And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

That Law and Prophets (which is the OT), we know is also described in the following passage, pulled right out of the OT, prior to any change in the priesthood by Jesus Christ:

"The law of the Lord is perfect,
    refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
    making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
    giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
    giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
    enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
    and all of them are righteous." (Psalm 19:7-11)

I hear the chorus, "But Jesus died so that we aren't held to that standard". Right! We are not saved by adherence to the law of Moses. Thank you. But are we slaves of Christ or not? Are we slaves of righteousness or not? OK, well what is righteousness, and how do we know what it is? What does our master command us to do? Make disciples of all nations, teaching them what? Baptize them symbolizing their cleansing and repentance from what?  Teaching them God's righteous ways, which we know by reading the excellent outline he gave us in the entire scripture! Teaching them repentance from sin! And how do they know how to repent of their sin if we do not teach them the law? How can they know what it is to covet, if they never read the law saying "thou shalt not covet"?

When I write here, "guys, let's soak this in and make it real in our lives", I'm talking to myself as well. I need to change so much! I'm so far from the way that I want to be! Where are the people who will do this with me? Am I the only one who is both interested in establishing Biblical law and also not sold out on the idea that American law is somehow reparable via the "due process" of making new legislation, which itself is not Biblical because all legislation that we need is already in print?

How can we add to scripture and make it better? What laws can man produce that improve upon God's standards of righteousness and justice?

I wish someone would come and get brave with me by either telling me that I'm wrong and showing me why, or by joining me me in being passionate about this. I'm so useless on my own to produce this kind of change. What good is a law upheld by just one person and enforced by himself on himself? Where is Zion, so I can go take root there and drink the sweet living water of God's love and righteousness without fear of unjust laws?

"Empires of dirt and grace"

Sunday, December 10, 2017

God, why do I have to tell people they're wrong, when they seem so at peace with their wrong views? Is it so bad when someone doesn't know you? If their false beliefs lead them to do kindness to one another, but the only fault in their actions is that they don't do it for your glory, but they do it only because they love their neighbor, then is it so wrong? Is it so bad to be wrong? If to know God is to love God, then is not knowing God the same as hating God?

I hear the pharisees telling Jesus, "not for your good works do we stone you, but because you, being a man, make yourself God". If Jesus was really just a man, then they would have been right. But Jesus was going around healing people. How could they be right to stone someone who does so much temporal good, even if his theology is blasphemous?

God, when a stranger is kind to me with unsolicited generosity, but then I ask them about their faith and they tell me about some bizarre contortion of your created spiritual order... how do I tell them with love, "you're wrong, and you need to repent and believe the Gospel"? And worse, how can I give them the gospel when they preempt me with stories about how the Catholic church hurt them, and then they lump all nominally Christian groups together. How can I tell them, "we're not all like that" without sounding like a cliche? It would take so long to explain the history and the reasons why the Catholic church is not the true church, because of the nuances in their beliefs and the impact that has on their greater theology, and all that seems totally irrelevant to this individual who needs the gospel in plain and doesn't even believe in Catholicism anyway! I don't like to do it, God! I have never brought myself to be so bold in common interactions!

Is it laziness? Sometimes a person's view of the spiritual world is so twisted that I have no idea how to express the truth to them in a short time with words that would even make sense to them. They would certainly interpret anything I say in light of their own worldview and find themselves back where they started as soon as I leave. I don't like long conversations, especially with people I don't know well.

What does it mean to share the Gospel in a loving way? Is there a "right" tone of voice for this? Is there a certain phrasing that should be used? Do I need to adjust my body language to seem more kind? Am I supposed to weasel the Gospel into a conversation indirectly, as if I don't fully believe it myself?

God, help me and teach me to do what is good in your sight!

The Gospel is offensive when presented in its full integrity. It tells people, "you are wrong, and every intention of your heart apart from God's good grace is evil, but God nonetheless loves you. He humbled Himself by coming down as a man to take the penalty for your sins. All you have to do is believe this, and God's gift of forgiveness is yours". Why, oh God, do you command me to declare the Gospel to all men, and at once command me to be at peace with all men as much as it depends on me? How much does it depend on me? How do I obey you, God?

Lord God Almighty, your servant has no idea what he's doing. Give me some direction in those moments when I'm near people who don't know you. I'm so bold in writing, but so soft spoken in person.

Maybe the problem is that I don't see unbelief as such an egregious sin, especially when it is paired with sweetness of character. It's an underestimation of the seriousness of failing to acknowledge our creator, and a lack of faith in the Most High God to work out these situations if I would just act in faith by telling the truth. But God, how do I do it in a way that communicates your love? It's not a lack of faith alone; it's also a lack of wisdom, and really a lack of social skills. God, I'm not able to do what you've called me to do. Please enable me and embolden me to do it, or else I will never do it on my own. Forgive me, Lord, for my weakness in this; I want to do what is good, but I don't have it right. I trust you, Lord, that you will sanctify me in this. Please do it.

...

I want to start doing the things that God has made me love to do. I haven't done art with my hands in such a long time. I'm going to join a pottery class.

"That sounds apocryphal."

Thursday, December 7, 2017

In that last poem I put a lot of effort into the structure, and bound up a lot of the meaning with it. I'm happy about what I did with the structure, but the words alone don't move me deeply. In fact, I'm more pleased with the paragraph afterwards than with the poem itself. I think a poem where too much of the meaning is bound up in the structure can't be expected to be interpreted correctly by a careful reader, or in full by a casual reader. Part of me can't help but compare this kind of poetry, including my last poem, with something like a Gnostic hymnal; elitist, and I don't like it.

So when I bind up the meaning in the structure, the meaning becomes hidden to some extent. Usually, I think I want to deliver my meaning clearly, but sometimes I have things that I need to let out which I can't articulate to anyone, even myself, and so i have to hide those things in imagery or structure in order to express them... So, I might rhyme sometimes, but I'm not going to limit myself to a certain style, and I might more often not rhyme in my poems.

But on the other hand, I've heard songs with no lyrics at all, which moved me deeply or helped me to process difficult memories. The lack of words in those songs certainly did not imply a lack of meaning, but the meaning was inarticulable with words (at least, it seemed so to me), and I suspect that other people derive totally different meaning from the same songs. I want to ask the composer of one of those songs what meaning they tried to write into the music they composed, to find out if it was articulable with words by the original composer or if he had somehow tapped into an aspect of himself enabling him to compose works of art which communicate ideas which can't be articulated with words, and then wrote his songs to communicate those ideas directly. That deeper meaning would have to be a common element in all interpretations. This is the human element in art. It's something which I experience all the time, which affects me regularly, and which I love, (I even married her), but I don't fully understand it.

I need to think more about it. I'm going to email my composer friend, and brother in Christ, HDJRII. Shout out to his great YouTube channel, by the way:
 https://www.youtube.com/user/heyhdjr2

 "It doesn't have to be every time. Even if it's one in a hundred times, I want you to remember."

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Really diggin the propaganda right now.


Also, I wrote a poem today during one of my breaks at work. As I said in my last post about poetry, I'm going to try to rhyme more. Here it is; I call it "individuality".

-----------------------------------------------------

I was original
Focused on physical
Things inconsequential
Caring only for self
Born a slave to my wealth
Feared death more than all else

Now I'm an imitator
Of God the mediator
Father, Spirit, Son the King
Sharing peace with my neighbor
With the weapons of our strife
Words of God that breath new life
Soul from spirit severing

-----------------------------------------------------

Spoilers: my intention for this poem was to touch on the idea that God and God's goodness was in existence infinitely prior to our rebellion. There are endless ways to deny God, but there is only one  ("straight and narrow") truth. The most novel thing in existence is evil, futilely challenging God The Unchallengeable. Pride arrogated, honestly unimaginable but behold it exists everywhere. We, sheep of God, follow our master "blindly" because we see the unseen, and recognize that nothing we do is done by our own power, but is the gift of God to sanctify us for His glory. To do God's well-established good is not less than to be unique, but rather it is to encroach on an infinite boundary of eternal creativity. To find our truest self expression as God's works of art, each unique, is to recognize ourselves as such and limit ourselves to the endless depths of God's goodness, finding God's glory in our art. There is only one truth and there are so many lies, but the truth itself contains an infinite amount of information -- an infinite universe which can be continually divided into smaller parts until we are incapable of detecting or quantifying their substance -- and that's just the physical world; there is also an endless adventure comprised of metaphysical realities all around us: of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self control I'm an imitator; a poser. I'm a sheeple; completely obsessed with just one thing. I'm a entirely described by the word "follower", but the thing that I follow is so big, so much better, so much more intricate and awesome than all other things, that it encompasses all of us whether we acknowledge it or not, and brings about our self-realization, sustaining our individuality in a way more full than our novel lies. I'm a follower of God, the Truth Almighty.

Sunday, December 3, 2017

So, towards explaining my post on November 27th, I want to briefly discuss a certain contingency which I ignored.

Imagine a world where nations are defined entirely without concern for the land they occupy, but only by their ideology or religion. So, the "atheist state" takes up random splotches of land around the world based on wherever the atheists live, as does the "Islamic state", the "Christian state", the "Buddhist state", etc..Due to the violent nature of certain ideologies, it's natural that said groups may eventually band into neighboring regions for safety, etc..

Justice in this system is executed by each community, which puts the world in a very difficult position. What if a member of Isis steals from a member of the Christian theocracy? Do we chop of the thief's hand as they do in Isis, or make him repay 7 times as the Bible prescribes?

Furthermore, certain groups may employ a consequence for apostasy, such as the LDS tradition that an apostate cannot rejoin, or the ISIS tradition that an apostate gets do die, or the atheist tradition that an apostate gets mocked; joining such a group, therefore, comes with the understanding that said contingency exists. There is no civil penalty for leaving Christianity except loss of citizenship. However, there is the death penalty for leaving a Christian Theocracy and then attempting to proselytize other Christians to follow after false gods (Deut 13 -- I guess if you think about it in terms where all life is created to please God, God is king, and Christianity leads to eternal heaven then counter-proselytism is treason, attempted eternal murder, and a crime against humanity).

Lastly, suppose a person claims to be a part of an ideology containing no penalties for anything. By what standard is he punished for any crime against anyone?

These questions are all interesting to think about, but the answer is really not complicated. In my suggestions, I did not advocate a plurality of justice systems. I advocated Christianity.

The above really seems like a cop-out, enabling me to avoid answering the more difficult question about the reality of our current global economy: "how can we all get along when we have differing views about justice?". The answer is, "the only way to do this is to compromise".

Someone might say, "but Zac, we've had peace and freedom of religion for years in the U.S., with a Christian majority. Why change?" Right. Let's think about this. The states were established with laws that are based on the OT system. We can all thank Presbyterians for things like separation of powers, a judicial articulation of God given rights, and trial by a jury of our peers. However, for some reason these Christian law makers only modeled their system on scripture, and didn't use the scripture directly as their law book. Nonetheless, if you check old court records, you can see judges deferring to the scripture when they made their rulings. This is something I don't understand. If they were willing to establish a state which is not strictly scriptural, then how did they know which circumstances merited deferring to scripture? I can only imagine that they simply did it whenever it was convenient. Isn't that a compromise of values? I wish someone would explain this to me.

Before I proceed, I'd like to state an optimistic premise that all laws are conceived to protect people from immoral practices, whether directly or indirectly. In America, we have laws to protect people from theft, murder, rape, etc., and we have laws designed to maintain the system which carries out those laws. So, all laws are eventually built on moral considerations. So, a legal compromise is a moral compromise. This is Biblical, as Paul says, "I would not have known what it was to covet if the law did not say 'you shall not covet.'"

Christians, I ask you, where in the Bible does it give even the slightest bit of room for us to compromise morally (or legally, if my premise was rejected)?

Now, let's bring it full circle. How would we penalize someone who commits a crime against a Christian? We penalize him according to Christian law, and offer him protection from injustice perpetrated by an external legal system. He may choose to return for his home penalty or not. How would we penalize a Christian who commits a crime against a nonChristian? In the same way: according to Christian law. (Lev 19:33-34, 24:22)

So how can we all get along when we have differing views of justice? Christians, I don't think we can.

What is the implication of this? Do we go to war with the whole world at once? No! We preach the gospel. And, in any place where we have a high enough concentration of God fearing people to make this actually happen, let's establish righteous Biblical law there.

OK, so what about the law of the land? Well, if we can actually establish a Christian legal system somewhere, then let Christians not file a lawsuit by means of the unjust laws of the world. If we do that, we're hiring foreigners to do injustice to our brothers.

Finally, I think I need to fully qualify a statement I made in my 11/27 post. I said, "The execution of unjust law on an unwilling people is tyranny." In the context, it may seem that I was referring to laws which were perceived unjust by those people, and as an appeal to nonChristians it may as well have been so. However, I am convinced that the opinions held by men about justice or injustice hold no truth or value except as much as they coincide with scripture. In whatever part they do not coincide with scripture, they serve only as witness against the purveyors of those opinions, which is why we must all be washed by Christ's blood so that our sins will not be held against us. So, as to my statement, I meant "unjust law" in the actual sense, not the arbitrary sense.

"I want you to sign off on these."

Saturday, December 2, 2017

This post feels rather sooncoming after my previous, long post, but I'd actually been working on that post for a few days. Looking it over and comparing it with my other posts, I think maybe it isn't so long, it just feels long to me because of all the times I wrote and rewrote different parts of it. Rereading it, I realized that some parts of it probably require some more explanation. Maybe I'll make some more posts and call it a series..

On careful consideration of my political views, I have concluded that it isn't beneficial for me to post political commentary except inasmuch as my commentary advocates the Gospel of God's Righteous Love and Justice directly. But doing that will be really stressful because of the unfortunate corruption and frankly ungodly behavior in (as far as I can tell) every national government in the world. Politics is sinking sand, and I don't want my blog to become all about polemics (although I do some of that from time to time). So, with reference to my past blogs where I mentioned that I might start commenting on the news regularly, I have reached a tentative decision on the matter, and you can bet that I probably won't be doing very much direct news commentary.

However, I do intend to take a stronger focus on Christian Nationalism. How can we describe Christ as our King unless we ourselves are subjects in an actual monarchy?

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I will call America the Christian nation, and treat Christian Nationalism as if it were identical to American Nationalism. I think that it is unproductive for us to say "America is a Christian Nation and so let's advocate for America", because I see the statement as merging "American" into our Christian identity, and ultimately isolating us from the rest of the Christian world. I think it's better for us to say "I am a part of the Christian Nation", where the Christian nation isn't even similar to America and occupies no land other than the land owned by its citizens.

Having said that, I don't think that Citizens of the Kingdom of God in America own any land at all. What happens if you don't pay your property tax? The Government takes it from you. They own your land, not you, and the system is unBiblical directly (see 1 Kings 21 - Naboth's Vineyard was allotted to his fathers by God through Moses, and the King could not acquire it legally). So Christianity is by no means connected to American soil, though we enjoy and protect the judicial system which was here conceived by Christians for God's glory. Just as Paul did when he was treated unjustly by Romans, we can use and cooperate with our physical nationality to protect ourselves from the world, but I think that true progress towards changing the world will require Christians to identify themselves as Christians in the most real sense. I mean, like, if you're the kind of person who trails an American flag behind his car, and you're a Christian, then why not trail a Christian flag?

Why is it that I feel difficulty talking about God in public? Why do I feel ashamed to sing a hymn while I walk in Walmart? Why can't I tell my coworkers, "Jesus died to receive the penalty due to you for your sins"? Aren't they Americans? Isn't America a Christian country? (The point I'm making is that it isn't).

My coworkers and friends in America are mostly Americans. America just isn't the Kingdom of God. Christians are the Kingdom of God, and we Christians are citizens of the Monarchy first and above citizenship to America. We aren't "dual citizens" with America. We're Christian citizens in the absolute highest order, and American Christians call themselves American citizens only because it's temporally convenient.

And while I'm on the topic of political angst, here's a song I like:



"Your heroes are worthless...but only God gives purpose"

Monday, November 27, 2017

Back at client site work. I heard that while I was home in AZ I missed out on a flu that passed through the workplace. It makes me wonder how fast these diseases spread across the nation, and whether the east-coast flu is a different strain from the west-coast flu, and whether or not it is the same way in other large blocks of populated land in the world which experience less travel.

This week my end-client PM has seemed happy to see our progress (albeit stressed about the deadlines). Also, the end client PM has been taking an increasingly active role in understanding the details about our progress, which is not an easy task for such a complex design. That person is a good PM.

Early this week I was thinking about the nation state, and its value. I wanted to summarize my thoughts, but the summary has taken a few days to put together because I've been researching about these ideas as I go, and I keep having to rethink my conclusions. The observations and suggestions here, I realize, come from an approach to world politics which worldly people may think is naive... but I've read a few books on this subject, and I've taken time to empathize with a few different perspectives incompatible with my own or with each other (and I still disagree, though I less see the proprietors of those views as silly).

To be clear, I do not argue as some do that nation states are a new concept. Nor do I argue that they only serve to progress the motives of some malevolent party. I think that the modern world is technically capable of organizing itself in a way other than by nation states, maintaining the benefits of the nation state but overcoming its inherent disadvantages. This capability, I think, is a novelty afforded by modern technology and by the increasing wealth of historical insights we now have into the successes and failures of governments past. The change in perspective necessary to imagine such a world is so radical that I myself find it difficult not to revert to my normal way of thinking as I attempt to articulate my thoughts.

I. To start off, I'll give my estimation of the purpose which national distinctions serve.

A. They isolate economies, which enables large quantities of wealth to be generated with integrity in spite of widespread and not-immediately-curable poverty or corruption in other parts of the world, which would otherwise affect the value of a ubiquitous currency.
B. They serve to establish conventional boundaries so that a people group can expect to be taxed, penalized, and protected by a specific code of governmental law, as established by the local populace, and none other.
C. The conventional boundaries also allow for neighboring people groups to agree to defend one another, or to cease fire with one another, on readily identifiable terms, despite the fact that they are under separate legal systems.
D. They segregate and protect cultural practices

In short: They satisfy (and enable) the political self-consciousness of an ethnic or ideological community which exercises control over a physical territory.

II. Now, I attempt to identify a few issues with the modern conception of a nation state, with the U.S.A as my frame of reference. There are other issues, but these are the ones which interest me.

A. The persistence of the government is widely believed to be dependent on the support of the entire people group (and, in its current form in the U.S., this is so). However, the government is only capable of representing a subset of the people, and so the other subset is by necessity subjected to laws which it believes are unjust. The execution of unjust law on an unwilling people is tyranny. The out-of-power party is not always unwilling, but I think that it's safe to say that it complies either for fear of penalty (duress), or for hope that their party will come to power and resolve the issue. There's eventually a tipping point where the injustice is viewed as so egregious that the penalty no longer functions to incentivize compliance, or the ruling party established such perceiveably unjust laws in such a way that they cannot be overturned by any legal or reasonable means. (This is not the case with Obama care specifically, because the law can be easily repealed if only the right wing would agree on a strategy. However, the legislative process in the U.S. increasingly exemplifies the issue).
B. The nation state ultimately defines a people group by the land where they live, which (I submit) is not a relevant measurement of the cultural or ideological identity of a population. As a result, the ideals (especially political) of any specific ideological group are never truly tested in full, and so all parties are necessarily unsatisfied, and the merits of a party's proposed system can never be discovered in truth. (This is similar to my objection to the university's pretense in attempt to present neutral information, but it is an unrelated topic).
C. The nation state sees any loss of land as a national loss affecting all parties in the nation, but especially threatening the survival of the government thereof. Because of "A", this is often a valid fear. Thus national borders are inflexible, which, when innovative ideologies take hold of the population of some area of land causing them to desire independence (see also "A"), the resolution seems to commonly require a civil war. (For the record, I know I said that the U.S. was my frame of reference, and so I want to say that I do not agree with the ideals of the confederate south as I understand them, or the north necessarily for that matter.)

In short: After the establishment of the nation state by a people group, the people group may move or change, and the land controlled by that ideological community may change, but the nation remains associated with the physical location rather than the people or representative ideological community which established it.

III. Now, I'll present an alternative system.

........I wrote and rewrote this section several (5+) times over the past few days. Some of my ideas were very long, some short. A few times I ended up just describing the world map, or the United States, because I was trying to establish a system where any group could identify as a state and govern themselves according to their own preferences. The issue with that is that it's basically establishing nations again. And, no matter what system I describe, it is likely that the whole world will not agree to it at once, and so its people will be identified by the land they occupy, and its neighbors will regard its physical boundaries with respect to their own borders.

So I finally resolved that the truest expression of my idea is a state where any part of it may choose to leave without consequence, and any part of a foreign nation, bordering or not, may choose to join and abide by the nature of the new state without question. Now, considering this carefully, I realized that what I had just described was a religion. In the first millennia, Christians around the world claimed Christ as king and were executed in large numbers for following Biblical law in priority over local law. Even today, the Christian conscience is penalized in places which do not allow public reading of scripture, and "hate speech" legislation, wherein "hate" is defined by people with self identity issues so deep that they reject the physical reality of their own bodies and sue others who openly disagree with them about their arbitrary self identification, poses a similar threat in America.

In the end, what I present is ultimately what I believe. Furthermore, borders are inescapable because property ownership is natural and Biblical. Physical property (including land, clothing, our bodies, and the food in your mouth) has physical borders around it; it takes a fixed space in the cosmos. What I propose is that we, Christians, preach the gospel of repentance and belief in Jesus, that we live according to our Christian convictions, and that we do not incorporate nationality, race, or culture into our identity in any way which would segregate us.

Here's my understanding of the Biblical judicial system prior to Israel's rejection of God as king by the establishment of the monarchy:

In any given community of at most 10 adult individuals, let a judge be established according to whoever they respect, and let the community resolve their disputes in accordance with the determinations made by that judge. Let the judges only resolve disputes when they are called upon to do so, and if the victim drops charges then let the judge honor the victim by foregoing penalty on the perpetrator. Let the judges be limited in their penal determinations by a *short* (as in, fits on your bookshelf) written code given by a higher authority (and since all men are equal, no man or group of men can be regarded as a higher authority above the judges. So, the code must be issued by God Himself, that is, the Bible). In any community with at most 10 judges, let a higher judge be elected according to who the judges themselves respect. For each tier of judges, if there is at most 10, then let a higher judge be elected for the ten. So, in a community with 10,000 people, there will be 1000 tier 1 judges, 100 tier 2 judges, 10 tier 3 judges, and perhaps 1 tier 4 judge. The function of the higher judges is to resolve disputes among judges, to receive appeals from individuals in lower court at their own discretion, and to take on cases which a lower judge feels that he cannot determine because it is too difficult. When a judge is called upon and makes a determination, and the determination is not appealed, and the determination contravenes no clear teaching in the written law, the community must accept and respect it. If the nation is threatened by some external army, let the defending army be composed only of volunteers who join in that moment to love their neighbor by defending his or her property, and let them trust God to do what is right in the battle, so they must only enter battle for causes which are righteous and worthy of God's favor.

So, to conclude, basically I'm advocating the Biblical government prior to the instantiation of the Israeli monarchy, and even if I'm wrong about the details, I will advocate the correct details when I am corrected. The issue with this proposition is that such a government can only prosper with God's blessing, because it's easy to take advantage of it by ignoring the moral indictments in scripture, for which there are no civil penalties, and so the whole populace must trust God to protect their freedoms. So prior to any truly free and good system being established, all people must repent of their idols and believe the Gospel.

"Good night"

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Still just a little bit sick, but I think I'll be better by the time I need to make my next business trip.

Today we ate at GEN, the Korean BBQ restaurant. It was pretty good, but I ate too much and didn't enjoy the aftermath.

As I was writing, a couple of Mormons just showed up at my door. I asked them a couple of questions, but I suck at finding times that seem appropriate to talk about things like why they're wrong, so I didn't share the truth with them. The way those guys go door to door puts real Christians to shame. I took their pamphlets and swapped contact info. I bet I can expect intermittent phone calls for the next couple of ages.

I thought a little today about what the consequences of limiting the AI's memory to a fixed format and size would be, and I realized that it means that I'll have to preprogram most behaviors. That's contrary to my initial vision, but I'm realizing that if I want to have an AI that really processes sensory data in a way that's productive, then I'm going to need a LOT of memory and some very robust processing algorithms to make that kind of learning valuable.

However, I think that with some careful thinking I can come up with a limited environment, with a set of rules, such that small memories are valuable and trees of logically dependent information are very small, so that jumps from premise to conclusion don't take an unreasonably large number of steps, and the information available to be weighed in any decision isn't too overwhelming. Then, if I'm careful, these small steps can be extrapolated into larger systems later.

Anyway, I need to go get some sparkling cider for Thanksgiving. If I don't get to it tomorrow, Happy Thanksgiving all!

"Just let the spirit guide you."

Friday, November 17, 2017

Me and Chowon are sick today. We're doing whatever seems best to minimize this so that we can get past it before Thanksgiving, but she is still going to work.

As I was considering the base learning algorithms necessary to produce a working AI, I realized that in order for such an AI to perceive that others are the same type as itself, (assuming I have algorithms in place for such a detection), it has to perceive itself. Also, I can't give it full information about itself or about others; it should be able to deduce that others are like itself by sensing whatever qualities I make available and making a comparison. At first, this seemed overwhelming to me, because of all the detailed sensory information necessary for someone to first identify their own parts and also make a comparison between those parts and the parts of another in order to determine that they are the same kind, and all this without even being able to see the backside of my own body. However, I'm thinking that if I come up with a simplified set of external qualities for any such artificial entity to have available to sense perception, and then make all external qualities always available to self and  other entities in "proximity" then such a comparison might be within reach.

I do not have the resources (neither the stuff nor the time) to give my AI an infinite capacity to learn, so I will have to allocate a certain amount of space (like a fixed-size array or linked list) for memories. I think I'm going to start working on an object to contain everything related to an individual memory, and then, until further notice, start my work with a three stage model for memory storage:

1. Immediate memories will persist for a certain number of actions, unless they are refreshed by one of those actions. Every time an immediate memory is refreshed without expiring, its timeout will increase exponentially.
2. An immediate memory whose timeout reaches a certain number, or which has a high enough emotional score, will become a day memory, available to scan for immediate access at any given time for the rest of the day. There are two storage locations for day memories; one for today and one for yesterday. When today's day memory bank becomes full, the entity will require sleep. Yesterday memories will have a number associated with them, telling how many consecutive days this memory has been put into day memory.
3. During sleep, today's day memories will be compared with yesterdays; anything which is repeated often enough, or which has a very high emotional score will be passed into long-term memory. Long term memories include information about frequency of access and most recent access, and will be sorted by those numbers. If frequency gets too low, or last access to old, then the memory will be purged when long-term gets full. Long term memory will be blocked into multiple sections (which I haven't really nailed down yet, but I currently am thinking about the following): muscle memory for actions and expected reactions, emotional memory to affect "moral" calculations, interpersonal memory to affect things like trust, mundane memory for things like the running priority list and the properties of objects for use in problem solving, and maybe some others as necessary.

Lastly, I'm currently thinking that I will comprise each entity of two parts: the body, which handles senses, status information, and contains all memories, and the spirit, which will interact with the body to make decisions. This way I can treat the spirit as if its receiving sensory information about an external entity (the body), and then have it receive the same information about other external entities, and effectively treat them both as external to itself, hopefully making it easier for me to conceive of a way to simulate something similar to empathy. This distinction will also make it easier for me to make changes to the decision making process by keeping that logically separate from the body itself. This doesn't actually  fit the Biblical model, which splits us into three parts (mind, body, spirit), but I haven't worked out a way to make that separation useful at the relatively low level of complexity I'll be dealing with. Besides that, if I'm honest, I don't fully understand the nature or capabilities of my spirit, and as a Christian I'm not 100% sure that I'm even allowed to experiment in order to find out. (This is a great irony, I think, that Christians, who are given as a gift the best and most direct access to the spiritual realm are restricted in the ways by which they are allowed to utilize that access)...... in fact, maybe the separation I've made earlier should have been "mind and body" rather than "spirit and body", and then the third component, "spirit" can be regarded as the means of direct communication between myself and the AI, because I'll be developing a very distinct and bounded little "world" for the AI to sense and interact with normally.

It recently struck me that I don't know anyone who is into this kind of thing. Chowon is willing to listen if I catch her at a good time, but my moods don't always coincide with good timing. And with regard to the specific Biblical AI idea, I know literally nobody who I think would be both interested in helping me with it and also knowledgeable about the kind of coding I'm doing. (Besides that, I'm ashamed to admit it, but I've never messed with collaborative coding tools, and it feels like a hassle to learn about them). This realization was immediately discouraging, but then after a while I thought that it could be more of a challenge rather than a discouragement. If there is really nobody in the world who cares to do the specific thing that I'm interested in doing, then it might very well be my duty to make sure that it gets done, for the sake of the human race! Even if it is only regarded as a piece of eccentric art, it may serve to benefit someone somewhere by sparking an even better idea in the mind of that person, which would not be sparked under any other circumstances because nobody else is going to do the thing that only I am passionate about.

I recently read some articles by Christians who wrote about "the Christian view of AI", and these articles wrote about how it is an atheistic notion to aspire to produce an AI which is similar to or better than human intelligence. Naturally, we will never be able to reproduce a soul in a machine, but I see nothing wrong with the aspiration to produce an AI that surpasses our own temporal capabilities. I see articles comparing high hopes for AI with the high hopes behind the tower of babel; I think that the traditional understanding of the primary moral issue with the tower of Babel was that man was trying to exalt himself as God or as a being on par with God, while simultaneously ignoring God's command to spread out over the earth. I can understand how atheists might flap their gums carelessly when talking about our hopes for the development of an amazing AI, but I don't see the act itself as a moral danger. Rather, the intentions behind the actions of nonChristians are the only potentially questionable moral aspect of this subject. That said, I certainly hope that AI achieves heights beyond our wildest imaginations, and I expect that we will achieve as much, given the time and peace necessary.

Now, all that said, I do see a moral dilemma regarding the teachings of Christians on subjects about which the Bible doesn't speak directly. If the Bible does not prescribe any doctrine or law to forbid or limit the growth of an idea or technology, then neither should we. Now, we know that the Bible lays down principles which are applicable everywhere, but I think that with regards to things like this, Christians should be extremely careful not to put words in the mouth of God when they teach for or against a thing. We should fear the words of God in Ezekiel 13, so that we will not say "thus says the Lord" when God hasn't said anything. Furthermore, shouldn't Christians, who know the truth and have a basis for right reason, be on the cutting edge of technology? I mean, if we really are the only ones who have a consistent foundation to make sense of the world, then we should be able to build on that foundation to reach heights far above what Atheists can even dream about!

I think Christians have a reputation for sticking their heads in the sand, but it wasn't always that way. Oxford, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, and the a good chunk of the other well-known ivy-league schools were started by Christians (protestants, mind you). And now they are practically factories pumping out closed-minded antichristians. What happened to us? (I almost feel like I need to justify myself by taking some shots at the theory of evolution, but this blog is long enough, and I've done that before, and there is always another angle that someone will get mad at me for neglecting to mention. Maybe another day.).

"I love you."

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Putting Foo onto a background today (lesson 10). I haven't touched C++ in a real way in so long. More recently I've only made little programs here and there to process data, like excel. I know that scripting languages are preferable for that kind of thing, but I get warm and fuzzy every time I doubleclick a ".exe" file. I'm relearning how to deal with things like class files and header files, and I'm learning how CodeBlocks handles them. I used to use the Bloodshed editor, but afaik it's dead (and I can't verify because the website doesn't include the year in its recent update dates). Besides that, Code Blocks advertises a number of features that make it appealing. I have to say, right now my major complaint with Code Blocks is that I can't right-click a project in the Management tree and add "new>>file/class/etc"; I have to make the target project the active project and then do it from the window header menu, "file>>new>>...".

Chowon has a cold, and I have a scratchy throat. I hope this doesn't develop any further. I have to go back to Tesla after Thanksgiving. I'm praying for her health all the time.

I listened to some MeWithoutYou today, because I am in such a mood that I'm able to tolerate the sound, although I think I'd listen much more often for the lyrics if the music wasnt so harsh sounding... and more recently if they would just sit down and decide what religion they are. I forgot how creative the lyrics were for that band, and I guess I never realized how many of my favorite songs of theirs in highschool and college were about failed marriages. Now I'm stuck wishing they would point that awesome creativity toward some more positive topics, because I really don't want to sit around and meditate on doing bad stuff all the time. I feel so old saying that.

I firmly hold the belief that the things you listen to and watch regularly will affect your patterns of thought in general. The evidence for this should be plain enough -- some of my friends who play minecraft all the time will talk about little else. My friends who are fans of certain movies or dramas or comedians will quote those sources on a regular basis. I've noticed in myself that if I listen to, say, nothing but Iron and Wine for 3 weeks, then I will feel depressed at the end of the three weeks.

It only makes sense anyway. If you play chess all day, you'll find yourself more able to play chess well, because you're developing patterns of thought that smooth out the processes necessary for that activity. It's the same with anything else. If you watch South Park all day, what kinds of patterns of thought are you developing in your mind?

Now,, I love South Park. It's a sort of guilty pleasure of mine. Also, I really enjoy violent video games and violent cheesy Asian samurai/ninja flicks or anime. Chowon has limited my intake of that kind of media quite a bit. I don't think that we necessarily imitate the things that we see on TV or attempt to repeat the things we do in video games in real life. I think that we're able to detach ourselves from the things we see and do virtually. However, I think that there are behavior patterns involved in the game activities themselves (in terms of the themes, strategic considerations, and raw physical reactions to stimuli) which can carry over into a person's life.

Something about song, though, is that you aren't actively responding to it while you listen. You're just hearing the words. Maybe I'm being a bit esoteric, but I'm convinced that those words are processed by us subconsciously when we hear them. I think the same thing about sitting in a restaurant; the direction our conversation goes will be influenced by the way certain key words in nearby conversations will trigger memories without us needing to think about it.

"But you can't yet appreciate harmony."

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

I hope any careful readers of mine will excuse me for the sophistry I employed in my previous post.  It wasn't to make a point -- it was more to make a joke (I took Baldwin's comments, as arranged in the song, as an invitation to conflate ideas). All respect to Milo and Mr Baldwin, and I pray that they come to Jesus if they haven't already.

Right now listening to Chon.



I have been lately posting the things I write on the day after I write them, because I find myself in the mood to write at the end of my workday when I'm sitting alone in the office and I've done my 8 hours, but I'm waiting for Chowon... Today she was sick so she stayed home from work, but I came to work late, so I have a few hours left before I can go home.

To fill in the time that I'm stuck at work, I've been teaching myself how to use SDL with C++ via Lazy Foo's excellent tutorials. Many thanks, Lazy Foo'.

I hope to use SDL to draw the backdrop for that AI project I've been thinking about. I have a textbook on AI design at home, and I'm debating whether I want to read it or not. I know that if I don't read it (or other works like it) then I'll be wasting a lot of time making mistakes, and my design will definitely be plagued with "bad practice" when I'm done.... but I don't want my ideas to be influenced by the architectural norms for this type of work. I am afraid that if I allow myself to see those methods, then my mind will default over to them rather than inventing new and potentially better solutions to these problems. As a result, I recognize that I may never finish the project, and that I will probably lose and regain interest several times over the course of this endeavor. Nonetheless, it is my project, and my hobby to do with as I like, for the benefit of all or none as God's plan would have it. I've already made some cute sprite sheets that I'm gonna use for this later.

I haven't touched my theonomy wiki in a very long time. I got overwhelmed and then I had no time, and now my motivation is driving me in other directions. None of the theonomy enthusiasts I spoke with were willing to help. After a while, it wasn't fun anymore. Maybe someday it will be fun again.

Chowon wants me to throw away the mess of electronic tools and components that I have sitting in a box in our apartment... I really want to buy some land with a house, and build a workshop on it for myself. That way I can make a space for all my hobby junk and keep it out of Chowon's sight and mind. In the meantime, I feel like I have to protect it from inevitable destruction and get that property and workshop as soon as possible.

I can't get a house in AZ, because Chowon and I don't want to accidentally end up staying here forever. Phoenix is literally in the middle of a wasteland. I don't like it here, and neither does Chowon. The only reason we've been here for this long is because Vertech is such a great company to work for. Vertech has been talking about sending me out to Tennessee, and I hope they get quick about making a decision on that.

Chowon has expressed to me also that she wants us to go to a different church. We've found one or two that we're thinking about switching to. It's too bad, I think, because I don't know how to talk to my previous church about it, but I have concluded that this is what's best. I'm worried that a certain prediction I made a long time ago will come true (it's because this is the way it always happens), that Chowon will finally become integrated into a church and begin to love a community and feel connected, and then we'll suddenly have to leave. It seems like God is taking us in that direction. I see this issue looming on the horizon, and I hope that God is gentle with us in that situation.

"I have something else to tell you."
Little office work to do between now and the next trip out. I was listening to Milo today. He introduces his newest album with some clips by James Baldwin.

Here's my favorite track by Milo:



In the first track on the 2017 album, Baldwin comments (self-gratifyingly?) that poets are "the only people who know the truth about us.", commenting that, among others, priests don't know the truth about us. I can only imagine that he's being intentionally vague about what the truth is, perhaps supposing that the "truth" is incommunicable by any normal (nonpoetic) use of language. In any case, I pointedly disagree with a face-value interpretation of his statement.

However, he elsewhere says, "the artist's struggle for his integrity is a kind of metaphor -- must be considered as a metaphor -- for the struggle which is universal and daily of all human beings...to get to become human beings.". I interpret the clause, "to get to become human beings", as meaning, "to identify a set of achievable criteria for self-actualization as humans and then to achieve that criteria", such that, in this context, a human can only exist as an actualized human, because actualization is a part of the human identity. That said, the idea that an artists struggle for his integrity "must be considered as a metaphor" for anything, seems to put artists in a place where even the things which they do without intending for those actions themselves to be art, are by necessity art because of the fact that they relate to the artists production of his art. So then the artists background, which undeniably contributes to every aspect of his art, must also be art. So every part of the artists life is art.

Since Baldwin has also made a distinction between poets and nonpoets (and here is where I don't know if both statements were in the same context, or if Milo was placing them together, so from this point on I am critiquing Milo's ideas inasmuch as he arranged Baldwin's comments in a way that seems to communicate this.) in this same context, it seems that the "artists" are also the "poets", and so I hope that I don't stretch too far when I say that he must think that there are nonartists in existence, for which the statements about metaphorical struggles for integrity do not apply. If that is the case, that abstractions must be made in this way, and that every part of an artists life is art, then I think he's saying that "artist" is an identity which some people do not have.

These days I try to be strict about what things I incorporate into my identity. People can call me whatever they want, and they may accurately classify me according to my temporal qualities, but my identity is a slave of God and none else. So, by Milo's use of Baldwin's ideas, it would seem that I am not an artist unless being an artist is a part of being a slave of God, and so all slaves of God are also artists. This isn't too far fetched, because as far as I'm aware, slaves of God all participate in some form or another in the worship of God by means of art, such as song at church. ... or else I am wrong about the nature of identities and I am wrong about my own identity. Is it possible for a person to be wrong about his own identity? Milo seems to be saying so in his song "IDK".

If an artist is someone who regularly produces art, and if poetry is art, and if a poet is an artist who produces poetry, then I am a poet. If poets are the only people who know the truth about us, and if I am a poet, then I know the truth about us. If I know the truth about us, then I know that the truth pertains to our identities as humans, and I suspect that I know my own identity. This makes sense, because all slaves of God are aware of the truth about the human identity. Now, with this in mind, I might find myself able to agree with Baldwin's first comments about how only poets know the truth about us, because all slaves of God are poets. All that said, since Baldwin says that priests don't know the truth about us (and I assume he's not just referring to catholic priests, but also protestant preachers), and since all real priests are slaves of God, we can't both be right about our identities, and so we can't both be poets.

So, in summary, identity politics are stupid.

"I met an Aristotelian and got depressed about his awkward views."

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

I've been thinking about how, if I were to attempt it, I would qualify the human psyche in terms of ones and zeros. (I'm going to brainstorm as I type). I'm sure that the Bible has something to say about what a human is, and how humans are (or at least, how they should be). The Bible addresses who we should be about as often as it addresses how we should be, and it is says about itself that it contains knowledge "sufficient for life and godliness". Because of this, I theorize that the Bible should contain information sufficient for a complete anthropological model. And, by "complete", I mean to say that "sufficient enough that working algorithms for humanoid artificial intelligence can be produced using only concepts derived from scripture". Of course, by "humanoid", I do not mean that it will physically resemble humans.

That said, I know that a lot of work goes into even a very small AI. As a personal project, I'd like to attempt to distill scripture for qualifying characteristics of human nature to which numerical value can be ascribed, and then attempt to make a very simple AI. Much work has been done on basic problem solving skills to enable interaction, so I think my time would be better spent focusing on the relational aspect of human beings in order to complete the AI. Those mathematical functions are only the tools with which a working AI should express itself.

It's commonly said that the Bible teaches that humans are designed for love and interpersonal relationships, which is the known intrinsic shortcoming of modern AI. I think it would be a foolish endeavor to attempt to qualify love in computational terms, but relationships manifest themselves in physical ways; "Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks". A conforming AI would not be capable of saying "I love X", but rather, "this is how I love X". Fortunately, the Bible regularly issues statements in those terms for our benefit, (e.g. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life". The meaning of the Greek words here allows for an alternative reading, "This is how God loved the world: He gave His only begotten Son...").

That said, several qualities of the Biblical Anthropological AI might be directly derived from statements about God, because humans are made in God's image. There are a lot of examples of this, but I'll look at one: the covenant.

God engages in relationships with individuals, and qualifies those individualized relationships in terms of covenants, which describe specific behaviors on the part of the individual, and responses to those behaviors on the part of God. These covenants offer blessings or curses which relate to God's affection for the individual and the specific circumstances meriting the instantiation of the covenant.

Next, the covenants are designed to facilitate plans which God intended to carry out in advance of him articulating the covenant. For example, God penalized Sodom and Gomorrah for violations of His law prior to the articulation of the Law with Moses. In fact, God gave them the death penalty, which was prescribed in the Mosaic law for the nominal crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah. So, the articulation of the law was not the instantiation of the law. Rather, it was God's blessing on Moses, a protection from penalty by making them aware of sin (that is, an expression of intent by God). The expression also served to establish better grounds for God to accomplish his purpose, by removing excuses from the minds of all those who heard the law.

Now, we should note that I'm not suggesting that an AI might qualify expectations on people with punishments, but I am suggesting that an AI could qualify relationships with reactions in general. The Bible is also very clear that God has a different level of authority than man, and even that some men are given more (or different) authority than other men. So, it would not be appropriate for an AI to impose a law on a person or on another AI (necessarily). However, it is fully appropriate for an AI to identify, based on the immediate circumstances, that its purpose may be progressed by establishing certain behavioral contingencies with external entities. (e.g. "I am in dire need of a certain substance, and I detect another AI which has it. I will ask for it. If they refuse, I will attempt to take it by force")

We could keep going for quite a while on the covenant train -- I'm gonna stop here.

All of the above discussion about covenants was just talking about a specific behavior point, and it is useless without an underlying principle which drives this behavior as well as others. That is the distilling question, "why?". We note the reason for the covenant was to facilitate a purpose which God had already determined. Thus, in short, I think we should determine an appropriate hierarchy of goals for an AI to have. We know that God's goal is his own pleasure, because He's ultimate. Our AI won't be ultimate, and neither are we, so here's a place where our anthropology differs from our deiology, but we may still find the answer in our doxology. The goal of the human is the glorify God. And, so, God literally gives us whatever goal he wants and then that is the driving force for all of our behaviors. God has given us the goal of learning about Him, which can be accomplished through interaction with others, interaction with the physical world around us which He created, reading His word, and also speaking with Him directly.

I'm tempted to say that my AI should just have the goal of acquiring and categorizing information (a fine goal for early language processors), but that only takes me so far. What happens when the AI receives conflicting information? Now it has to decide which source to trust, which means that every piece of information must include information about its source. For that matter, what if data B from source with 80% trust depends logically on data A from source with 20% trust, and data C from source with 70% trust negates data A? So now we have sources with trust levels, and a dependency tree for information. We need criteria for establishing trust or untrust, and a baseline to verify information against. This all becomes rather complex, and ends up dictating specific behaviors which I think should be naturally derived from more basic principles. Also, a good chunk of the discussion can be lumped in with the "problem solving algorithms" which I mentioned earlier.

So what I need to do is search the Bible for information on mankind's inherent goals. I'll post my instinctive ideas here, and then after studying a bit, I'll post my findings.

So my current "instinctive" model is that the primary motivator for any behavior is "fulfillment", which is analogous to "pleasure" but will serve a different purpose when this works itself out (where pleasure may go up or down based on immediate activities, fulfillment might be expressed as a number which only increases over time, and the happy AI is one which maintains a constant rate of change on that fulfillment number). During each scan, the AI evaluates the status of the following items and its ability to achieve each one given the current immediate circumstances. The AI then executes the highest item on the list (lowest numerically) which is not finished and may be progressed immediately. The AI acquires greater fulfillment for achieving things lower on the list (numerically higher).

1. Be working towards a goal other than #1.
2. Be not in imminent mortal peril
3. Establish reliable method for achieving #2 in the future
4. Identify standards for measuring quality of self
 a. Identify God and examine His qualities. These are the "perfect" model.
 b. Validate beliefs about God and His qualities
5. Determine method for achieving higher quality of self
 a. Ask/observe others, their results
 b. Experiment and evaluate results
6. Achieve higher quality of self

Sunday, November 12, 2017

I'm home now, and I'm at the place where Chowon has her swim classes. I think there's only about 10 minutes remaining for the class.

It's good to be back... but somehow every place feels about the same, and with a few exceptions, everything I do feels like a means to an end. The question, "what end", has so many possible answers, and each answer is expressible in such a short time, but carries so much finality, that I feel unsatisfied, as if the meaning of life is so simple that it's anticlimactic.

This train of thought betrays some shortsightedness in me. How can an infinite and incomprehensible heaven seem anticlimactic to me, uncomprehending? How can pleasing an infinitely glorious God seem anything else than awesome to me, insignificant? If it is simple in explanation, then it is because an all-knowing God has lisped it to me with perfect articulation. If it is complex in explanation, it is because an all-wise God has gifted wisdom to me with rich generosity. And God has gifted deep wisdom to all of us in His word, accessible even to unbelievers who share the benefits of God's gracious blessings on our free land.

....

I'm sitting in this lobby, blogging on my work laptop, and I'm really paranoid that someone's gonna look over my shoulder at me while I type.

...

It looks like swim class is over. Chowon's gonna be coming out of the locker room any minute, so I'll shut down.

"I can't ignore you."

Friday, November 10, 2017

I'm listening to this song tonight.


It's the last night before I go home for two weeks. I'm ready to leave, but my bags are not.

I'm having a hard time telling the difference between peace in my heart and apathy. I wish someone would punch me in the face, so that I could find out if I'm presently capable of being offended.

I think this feeling is a defense mechanism. I just got out of an argument with Chowon. I don't think there was any way for me to avoid that argument... Saying that probably won't earn me any points, but maybe I shouldn't blog right after an argument. I love Chowon, and I don't know how to help her in this situation. I offered all the tools in my kit, but they weren't enough, so I'm absorbing the heat that comes from God's torch as he makes new tools for both of us to use.

God, please enable Chowon and me to find you as a sufficient source for all of our joy. Please open a door to the right path, and give me wisdom to go through it.

I'm super tired, and it's past midnight, but my clothes are in the dryer. I am regretting washing them, but I didn't want to make my suitcase dirty. I might end up taking the plane with my steel toe boots tomorrow, which is not ideal, because planes are uncomfortable as it is. I bought a book while I was here. It's a collection of writings by Voltaire (whose name, I think, would be a cool name for a band). I'm putting it on my reading list right after Bonhoeffer.

Maybe I'll go sleep next to the dryer so that the signal will wake me up.... but I'd probably try to snooze the dryer and then end up not packing my bags.

Life is so short. I sometimes wish I were a hermit... There's a place under a bridge nearby here with a sign out front that says "peace park". It looks like it was made out of garbage by a homeless person, but wow what a place to live. He's got a little house on the property, and it's unclear if it's really his property or not, but he's just done such a great job decorating the place that I can't imagine any government entity taking it from him. I wouldn't mind living in a place like that. I wonder how he gets food... I think I saw him advertising tarot readings, which is a service I couldn't provide. I can't think of any such service, which requires little/no materials or effort and provides no benefit but still makes money, which I could provide as a Christian... I suppose I could deal blackjack, but I think I'd need a license for that kind of thing.

.... I'm not really in the mood to continue rambling right now. I'm gonna find another way to occupy my time.

"Don't come find me."

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

The results from that pageview counter differ significantly from what Google is telling me, and I was hoping to get an "all-time" count instead of a daily count, so I'll be experimenting with a few other counters in the near future.

The client project manager for this job was acting a little unusual today. I can typically smile at that person and they will smile back almost as if it's an involuntary reflex to being smiled at, but today they didn't smile back. I hope everything is ok.

I feel like my head is gonna explode. I don't know how some people can keep up these hours 7 days a week. I have expressly required that they let me take Sundays off, and I spend the whole day catching up on emails, filing expenses, organizing program files, and doing laundry.

Btw, I'm listening to this song:



I caught myself a couple of times today daydreaming about how I could explain what I'm working on to my family, but in a way that would strike a balance between creativity and accuracy. Specifically, I wanted to use as much metaphor as possible without misleading the hearer, and minimize or eliminate direct references to the actual things I'm explaining. Explaining this is making me lose my motivation to do it.

I've also been considering adding more rhymes to my poetry, and maybe even learning to freestyle rap. I've been trying it a little, here and there when I'm alone, and I'm very slow at coming up with the next statements. I have to learn to become more intentional about the sound and timing of my words rather than focusing on the meaning, so the difference between rap and normal conversation is aesthetic... but aesthetics can themselves be meaningful, like tone of voice or body language. I like to think that I'm committed to verbal language for its ability to reproduce clear and concise meaning in the mind of the audience, but I am in danger of being faineant if I disregard or underestimate other forms of communication.

I want to think of a way to rhyme without being capricious, because I don't want to add any meaningless element to a poem. I want not just the words themselves to have meaning as words,  but I want the sounds of the words to invoke a frame of reference conducive to receiving those words. However, since nonverbal communication relies much more on subjectivity in interpretation, the goal of that kind of art would have to be, in part, to invoke subjective responses (otherwise my art would achieve something other than my goal). So then if I am going to attempt to invoke a subjective response, I have to ask myself: is it possible to target a certain type or aspect of subjectivity? Are there objectively targetable aspects of subjective experience? If subjective responses can't be classified reliably, then is it possible to be intentional about aesthetics at all?

I also want to avoid utilizing stereotypes or cliche's in order to communicate my meaning. I want to be sure that I am appealing to human nature as opposed to common experience, which is not necessarily a clear distinction since all aspects of human nature are also common experience.

Now, as I've said before, I believe that there are objective standards of beauty, truth, and morality.... but when I try to qualify those standards, I realize how tired I am right now. I'm going to sleep.

"You're like a tether that keeps me grounded"
14 hours of work today, and my coworker wants to go in at the normal time tomorrow morning. I get why, and so I'll aim for it, but I'm not too happy about the idea. It's 1AM now, but I wanted to wind down a bit before I go to sleep.

In my last blog I mentioned having a hypnagogic episode. I don't know if I've mentioned this in my blog before, but I might as well explain myself now.

I've had an issue with that ever since I was little. The word "hypnagogic" classifies my hallucinations as those happening during early stages of sleep, but the doctor who did my sleep study (for which I didn't fall asleep and we failed to replicate the event) told me that what I was experiencing was caused by falling too quickly into REM sleep (skipping all the early stages of sleep), and then waking up immediately, which would leave me in limbo for a few minutes, fully aware and seeing both the real and imagined worlds at the same time. These hallucinations are invariably coupled with intense fear, and most of the time don't make any sense at all (often replacing things in the real world with geometric shapes, like my parents would be cylinders and my siblings would be cones or something like that).

When I was very young, I would hallucinate sometimes as often as once or twice a week (although once per month or less often was typical, as far as I remember). In elementary school I was examined, and the doctor told me that I needed to practice stress management, because my body wasn't releasing stress on its own in a healthy way. Ever since then I've made a lifestyle out of trying to manage stress. I was pretty young at that time, and I didn't really know what it meant to manage stress, so I took to introspection in order to learn what stress was, and eventually invented some of my own ways to meditate, some of which I still practice from time to time. Really, though, I didn't meet much success until 8th and 9th grade.

Around that time I encountered that person I mentioned in my previous blog (and I intend that this is the last consecutive blog wherein they will be mentioned). That person introduced me to blogging, and we used to be among the very few (possibly the only) readers of one another's blogs on Xanga. As it happens, keeping a journal or blog is one of the most well documented (lol) and well attested means of managing stress. Blogging was the first major step I took towards actual productive methods of stress management, and the exchange we shared was really a major turning point for me, and I started to make really quick progress in high school.

By 10th grade I brought myself down to almost one episode per 6 months, and I don't remember having any episodes at all during 12th grade. I hallucinated once during my freshman year of college, and then I don't think it happened again until I got married. Marriage is hard, and it's happened a couple of times since we married. But God is the laborer of my love, and He makes my feet firm so that I will not be shaken. I fully intend that my wife will be aware that I love her all the time. I do not want to be a man who doesn't call his wife enough, or a man who doesn't tell or show her that he loves her. Even when we're stressed, or arguing, or long distance, I want her to know that I love her.

"You know they're crazy when they stroke their chin like this."

Monday, November 6, 2017

Finding that photo yesterday hit me like a lightning bolt. I've encountered stuff that reminded me of that person in the past, but it never hit me as hard as it did yesterday. I had some crazy nightmares last night, and I was nervous to the point of feeling sick for most of the day today. I don't know why it hit me so hard, and I hope I don't experience that again. Everything I wrote in the blog was true, though...

I feel much better this evening. I had a long and difficult day at work, and some spicy food with beer for dinner. I'm feeling ok. And, being relieved of my sort-of misplaced and weird heartache, my heart is concerning itself this evening with desire for the touch of my wife's lips. I miss her a lot, and to miss her feels much more healthy and wholesome than to miss any other person.

That said, I think that my emotional responses to things have been gradually becoming more intense as I continue spending time here. In fact, the other night I had an intense conversation with Chowon over the phone and had a hypnagogic episode in the middle of the conversation, which is something that hasn't happened since back when me and Chowon were first learning how to argue. I was pretty tired and I guess I fell asleep while we were on the phone, but due to the nature of the thing I immediately woke up and hallucinated some scary stuff for a few minutes. Triggers for that are stress and lack of sleep; I'm getting a solid 5 to 8 hours per night here, so I tell that story as an illustration of the stress I'm feeling.

There is a certain level of stress inherent to the work I'm doing, but I don't think that the work is the primary cause. It's not because of my boss either -- he's a good boss. It's not because of the atmosphere at the job either; everyone says they're working at a breakneck pace to get things done quickly, but it seems to me that the more "hurried" they get, the more they become disorganized, and the more they have to redo work, and the more they miss deadlines. The way I see it, everyone is better off recognizing their natural limits and just doing their honest best to get the job done well and quickly. That is to say I'm not too stressed by the pace, because I'm not capable of working any faster than my best, and I always do my best, because my work is dedicated to my master, my God, who I love. All those things are fine. I think the main reason I'm stressed is just because of the hours. I'm an introvert, and I recharge by being alone. I really don't know how to handle this kind of constant interaction with large groups of people who want things from me. And being alone isn't enough, but when I'm at home I'll sometimes spend as much as 30 minutes just preparing to chill out and release stress -- doing things like brewing tea, cleaning the living room, getting a book to read or write in (and/or some colored pencils for doodling), opening the window to let in some fresh air, maybe playing some music, etc, to make the environment great, getting blankets to snuggle with Chowon. I can't do that here just because I only have a few minutes between the time I get home and the time I go to bed, and typically all of those minutes are spent on the phone talking with Chowon about plans that stress us out even more (and then I postpone bed for a few more minutes to blog).

Anyway, I'm still very concerned about my old friend. I spent much of my spare time today praying for that person, that God would give them health and peace and salvation.... but maybe I'll forget again... and maybe we'll meet again someday... God only knows.

"Can you have that running in auto by tomorrow?"

Sunday, November 5, 2017

I just started listening to Copeland again. Here's a song I'm listening to now:

Hearing that album makes me nostalgic.

Speaking of nostalgia, I looked through my old Photobucket today and saw a picture of someone I used to know, and it suddenly made me very upset. More upsetting than the picture itself was the name I gave it, and it's not the first time I've encountered a reminder like this which had the same effect. It was a picture of someone I used to know rather well; I stole that picture from the person's myspace because at the time I sort of encorporated the person as a part of my self-description. I imagine that if I were still in touch with the person, they would be one of my closest friends.

I was selfish and I took the person for granted. When that person did exactly what I should have expected them to do (if I wasn't a total idiot), I got hurt. Now, looking back, I'm not offended by that person's actions at all, but I'm more hurt that I didn't do what I should have done in order to protect the relationship we had.

The person may never know how much of an effect they had on me. I now regularly do the thing which that person told me I didn't do, so that I will never repeat the same mistake, and I recognize how important it is, but whenever I am reminded of that person I realize how they changed me for the better, and how much of my effort carries the bitter taste of that person's hurt voice telling me why... Three of the most vivid memories I have in my life are: the one time that person hugged me; the time (near when I moved away) that the person cried; and the way that whenever we walked away from the bridge where we used to meet and talk and play poohsticks, I would always look back, but they never looked back at me. The person just kept walking towards home. I remember once I stopped right after we parted and turned around and watched because I thought that maybe that person looked at different times from me so I always missed it, but they never looked back.

I don't have that person's phone number anymore, because I deleted it, and part of me regrets that, but I don't imagine that I would have helped things by keeping it. I regret not talking more directly to the person last time I met, but I wish it was one on one... To this day, sometimes when something reminds me of that person I get depressed, so that later when I'm alone I will cry because of how I wish things had been different; I would give all my worldly possessions to hear the person say that they forgive me. If the person ever reads this, one of my biggest hopes in the world, which I keep only inside myself (until now, I suppose), is that the person would remain true to God and love Jesus. I pray for them often, that God will protect their heart and keep them in the fold for salvation.

I almost want to never blog again, in hopes that if the person ever comes here they will see this post.

This post may seem like it does exactly the thing that I failed to do before, making me still a selfish jerk and a hypocrite, but I mean only what I said. I wish we were still friends.

...Chowon is lovely, and I'm happy to be married to her; I wouldn't change my life with her under any circumstances.

Other news, Photobucket recently decided that I have to pay monthly to continue embedding that water candle image at the bottom of my blog. I've switched to imgur for the pic. Also, I'm planning to go find the HTML corpse of Fido and replace it with a visitor map.

"You don't know who the red king is."
Map
 
my pet!