Would Solomon and Neitche Get Along?

Have you read Ecclesiastes recently? My programming class has. There was even a bonus question on the last exam about the content of Ecclesiastes 11. Why have a programming class read Ecclesiastes? To gain wisdom and understanding of the world around us. To look at the programming world in a different light. It seems to be working.

Any rate, Solomon was a bit pessimistic in that book. Every other sentence contains the word "meaningless". Rampant sexual exploration? Meaningless. Planning for tomorrow? Meaningless. Building public works and houses? Meaningless. Chasing wealth? Meaningless. Looking forward to tomorrow? Meaningless. Being good? Meaningless. Being bad? Meaningless. Being wise? Meaningless, but better than being a fool.

Doesn't it sound like Solomon would have fit right in to our 21st century world?

Go to class? Meaningless. Read the newspaper? Meaningless. Watch the news? Depressing. Buy a house? Expensive. Sleep around? Might as well, at least I'll feel good. Run for office? No, I can't make a difference anyway. Vote? No, ditto. He would fit right in with our gloom and doom "God is dead" world.

Or would he?

I really do think that Neitche and Solomon would have gotten along to some extent. They both perceived that this vainglorious existence of ours is just that - vainglorious. There is one BIG difference though.

Neitche's conclusion is that since everything is meaningless, we have no responsibility or duty to mankind or even the universe itself. There is no God, and at best He is disinterested. So, do whatever - as long as you don't invalidate life - because no one owes you and you owe no one.

Solomon concludes that despite the fact that this world is meaningless and the universe and life are unfair, this sad state does not alleviate us from our duties. Primarily our duty to God. "Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man." God is alive, tuned in, and aware. Respecting Him and doing what He wills provides us with the meaning we seek.

Perhaps Neitche did not look far enough.

Is man's existence sufficient to give him meaning? Both Solomon and Neitche say no.

Is this world and its needs sufficient to give man meaning? Both Solomon and Neitche say no.

Is the universe itself sufficient to give man meaning? Both Solomon and Neitche say no.

And that is where Neitche stopped.

His scope was too small. He trusted only in what his eyes could see and his mind could fathom. Perhaps there is something outside this man, world, and universe that is too big for the eyes to see and the mind to fathom - but not too big for the heart to notice.

How big does one have to be to admit that maybe he is not the end all and be all? How confident does a woman have to be to admit that she is not the epitome of evolution? How crazy do you have to believe in a God that we can experience? How crazy do you have to be to believe in an empty and void universe?

Need for Rebellion

Why do we feel the need to rebel? Why does a few kids who hop on stage at a concert wind up making the news? Why are we so concerned with the rules and whether or not we agree?

One of the easiest ways to identify who we are is to identify who we are not. So, we do not agree that some of the issues that are considered major by some people are not considered major by others. How do we identify ourselves? Stand up and say - "That is not me. I may not know much more; but that is not me."

Why do we find ourselves focusing on the rules? Often times our boundaries serve as a definition. Rather than look out and see the possibilities that exist inside our life situation, it is much easier to see the limitations set up by the boundaries. We all have limits that proscribe our life. After a while, you realize that the limitations are not nearly as important as the opportunities that are created by those boundaries.

Yes, the ring on my finger limits the relationships that I have with women in my life. I can spend my life concerned with how this limits my "freedom". Or I can see that this circlet of gold frees me to give my heart and soul to a beautiful, passionate, intelligent, capable woman who, for some unknown reason, sees value in this poor man from the hills of Kentucky. She could have married anyone - men richer, smarter, more handsome or more whatever - but she chose me. My choice seems obvious to me. The boundary does not limt my life, but opens my life up to joy, beauty, and experiences I never knew existed.

Love you Shar - but only on days that end in "y".

Something New

From time to time, you just have to bite the bullet. Now is my turn.

Reality is such a personal thing. The edges are blurry and kind of fuzzy. It actually looks better that way. Too sharp a focus cuts deeply.

Where do we find the common ground? How can we agree upon truth when we cannot find a shared reality? Can we trust what we see, feel, experience? How big of a microscope do we need to see the smallest things that we share in common, even when we don't appear to share anything in common?

Remember Pascal? We must first see the truth of the other persons' view point in order to start a meaningful dialog.

Gybe ho!

Why am I doing this? Because I asked others to.

Why gybing? Gybing is changing direction while sailing downwind. An accidental gybe can be quite dangerous as the boom, driven by the wind, swings through an arc proscribed by the mainsheet. A normal, controlled gybe is a smooth transition from one tack to another. What is the difference? The skill of the crew, the observation of the skipper, and the fickleness of the wind.

Plus, the British spelling is worth a lot of points on the Scrabble board.

I will be writing the occassional pseudo-random thought on this board. I wonder who will stumble across it, other than, of course, you and me...

And the rest of us.