Archive for October, 1997

n: two more little things

Okay, I thought of two more things while I was in the shower. The first one is a thought that I have had for a while, but that I am failing to put down because I keep forgetting it when I am writing.

A major source of the energy that has been going into my arguing is my English 202 midterms. I am having a lot of trouble writing them, and when I sit down and try to start writing everything that I come out with is disjointed and incohesive. The problem is that I am trying to create a logical model and them support it, but I am writing on mysticism and I don’t have a solid working definition. When I am writing I go back and forth jumping between different possibilities and I end up with a jumbled mess. It is extremely frustrating to me, and I have a severe case of writer’s block.

So, I escape from my feelings of inadequacy into writing computer programs and arguing. I am glad that I have developed the practice of escaping into productive, I used to just sit and watch television for hours on end, but at the same time it is still an escape.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons that I would like to have the computer games in the lounge as much as I would. For me last semester they helped to provide an amiable social environment where I could get away from all the things that were bothering me. I abused it for a while and was in the lounge 5-8 hours a day, but I learned some measure of control and changed that.

Point # 2 has to do with dumps and the fact that there is apparently a rule that I was not aware of that it is not kosher to respond to dumps. Why?

I am thinking that anger is very much like alcohol. It has the ability to shift the power structures in how I think, but it does not have the ability to create thoughts. The ideas that I come out with when I am angry are still my ideas. They are skewed from how I normally think, but they don’t suddenly start appearing randomly from nowhere. I think that addressing the ideas in dumps as though they were my normal way of thinking would be improper, but I don’t think that there should be a taboo on responding to dumps. If anything, in dumps, the things that tend to stay covered up and protected come out. It would seem to be the most opportune time to get a look at parts of me that I usually hide from everyone, and to help me to recognize those parts because more than likely I hide them from myself.

You cannot take the person presented in a dump as the whole person, but I think that if you do not recognize that the person in the dump is real, then you lose some of the complexity of the whole person.

Leave a Comment

n: something I forgot about the computers

Oh yeah, I forgot to say that everything that I wrote in my last dump I consider to be mute because there is currently a university regulation that the Honors Program would have to violate in order to put the games on the computers.

It still bothers me some that I will not have the opportunity to play, but not all that much. Somewhere in me I occasionally hit an inner idealist who gets pulled all over the place by the principles behind things. I think that is part of what was going on during the last journal. I stopped caring about actually getting the games on the computers and started caring about how the Honors Program was being led and how my girlfriend thinks and acts. I think that my emotions and control issues carried over and clouded both of my perceptions. I am also wondering how much of my last statement is false. One of the things that I really liked about my angry journals that was I got angry. I have all kinds of statements and defenses that keep me from getting angry, and it was nice to be able to do it. I also have stigmas about being negative, most of them originating with the statement that people don’t like to be around negative people and if I am negative then no-one will want to be around me. So, I am still deciding what I believe.

Leave a Comment

n: something a little more rational

This is going to be short, but I want to get a thought down before I retire for the evening.

One of the biggest things that is coming up for me with the computer games is that someone else has control over something that I want and they won’t give it. I think that I am (and I think that I feel) helpless. It really bothers me alot. One of my defenses is to start manipulating both emotionally and logically. Perhaps because I think that I can gain some measure of control that way. One of the statements that I have is that people can push me around, but I will make them pay. D has been pulling this string very hard lately, and tearing into her was on some levels a form or revenge.

On a side note, I did not mean to send out my really angry dump to the whole group. I was going to send it to A and ask her opinion first. I saved it to a file from within mail and I meant to quit out and not write the buffer (send the message) but somehow I managed to send it. It is strange, I vaguely remember quitting out, but the message was sent, so I couldn’t have. I am wondering if I have the capacity for my brain to check out for a second and something else take over and carry out my vendetta. Or maybe I just hit CTRL-Z out of habit, I do not know.

Another thing that bothers me is that this afternoon I took a nap, and when I went to bed I had a big knot of negative feelings in my stomach, and I woke up like twenty minutes later feeling really alert and the feelings were gone. I wonder where they went to. Did I cover them over? I don’t know this either.

Leave a Comment

angry dump: leadership

My thoughts have been turning more and more angry about not having games on the computers in the lounge. I want to find out where this energy is coming from.

I want to pull away the things in my head that stop me from getting angry and just let loose. If I could just scream at everyone for a paragraph then I would be happy.

I am going to start out with what I wrote on paper during Calculus:

*-*-*

I am really stuck on this issue. I am starting to get angry, and I want to find out why. I am trying to listen to D, but I think that she is stuck on a neurosis about the games and she isn’t doing what I consider to be a good job of arguing. Also, I am in my position pretty tightly and I want to find out why.

A very large part of it is that I am a member of a body that is governed by another and I do not think that the governing body is working in my best interests. It is coming up really strongly with D. I think that she is working at shaping the Honors Program to be an expression of who she is and what she likes, and I am not a part of that.

I really enjoy playing computer games and I would like to get involved with programming them as well. Playing gives me a chance to relax for a little while and I get to be competitive in something that is recognized as a game. It is a place where I don’t have to do any heavy thinking, but it is not completely inactive and impersonal and completely mindless like television.

I want to know what this Honors Program is about. D has been using the argument that I am not a full member of the Honors Program so my voice is not as valid. By God, I might not be a full member on paper, but I do more than 98% of the people who are. The Honors Program matters to me and I feel like I have a relationship with it. If I am not a real part of this program I want to know it. I can’t stop you people from from treating me like a second class citizen, but if you think that I am, then I have a right to know and so does everyone else who is operating under the delusion of equality.

People have a right to make their own decisions. They also have a right to suffer their own consequences.

*-*-*

I have been looking at my talking with D and looking at how I have been thinking and I do not like what she has been doing. <switch perspective> I was talking to you today and you kept coming up with stupider and stupider arguments. I think that your saying that we shouldn’t have the games because you might accidentally look at the screen and it would scar your fragile brain is a pile of horse shit. I have a suggestion, get the fuck over it. You might have the right to act this stupid if you were just a normal citizen, but you are not. You are a leader and when you signed up for the job you checked your right to not consider anyone else at the door. You do not have the right to keep me from doing something that I enjoy because you can’t avoid looking at two twenty inch squares in the lounge. I can see turning the sound down. That is fine and good; people can’t avoid the sound. But saying that you won’t be able to go into the lounge because you might see Quake on one of the screens from across the room is asinine. You need to go get some help because you have some serious problems.

God dammit, why the hell are people like you in charge? If you can’t handle compromise then you do not deserve to be a leader. It pisses me off that you have this great opportunity to help other people and you get caught up in power trips and horse shit and it gets flushed down the toilet.

Let me say this once again: you do not have the right to decide what is right or wrong for me. Take care of your own ass, that should be plenty. There are plenty of good reasons to have the games on the lounge computers, but A#1 is that there are people that you represent that want them. Everything doesn’t have to be productive. If that’s how you want to live your life; fine. You go do that, leave me alone.

You are not just another person. You lose some of your rights when you agree to represent the people. I am not asking you to prostitute yourself or your morals, I am asking you to get the hell over your hang-ups and let those of us who want to play computer games do so. I promise you that we will not make you play and we will not make you sit and watch.

It is so frustrating to me that you have the power and you don’t care about what the people want. I am willing to help you work out rules so that the interests of both sides are protected, but you won’t do that. Ever since the beginning all that I have heard is that we are not going to have games and that is it. I can’t understand what chip is on your shoulder. My intuition says that it is a power thing and your mind says that if you compromise and work with me then you lose. It is the same thing with controlling what is on the hard drives. It has to be within specified norms or it is not okay. Why? Is it all just what the administration thinks? How far will you go to please the administration? But that isn’t even applicable for most things, because except for the wave files and the backgrounds none of the stuff on the computers is seen by anyone. Why take it off? For me it would be a power trip thing. “Look at me, I am part of the authority structure, I have this power and I am going to exercise it.” Do you like being part of the “right” group?

You cannot be a leader unless you are willing to compromise. You are not going to get all of what you want. You can force your will on other people for a while, but eventually they get sick of it and people come along who can do a better job than you. I do not think that you belong on the Honors Council or any leadership position if you do not take into strong consideration the desires of the people that you represent, and if you do not know how to let go of your hang-ups and do what is best for all concerned.

I happen to have a copy of the Tao Te Ching with me, and I also happen to know that it backs me up. I didn’t plan this, but it is a pleasant convenience.

"When the Master governs, the people
 are hardly aware that he exists.
 Next best is a leader who is loved.
 Next, one who is feared.
 The worst is one that is despised.

 If you don't trust the people,
 you make them untrustworthy."

A good leader listens to the people, and does not make rules to bind them into being people that they are not. She allows the people to be free and to come into their own natural responsibility.

And over and over again I read, do what to you are going to do, when you start knowing ahead of time what it will be, then you lose what you are doing. No-one knows what will come if we put the games on the computers. All that I know is that right now I am want to have the opportunity to play, and I believe that I am willing to work with other people’s ideas to come up with a solution that is amiable to everyone.

Will anyone get completely what they want? Now that I ask the question I think that the answer might be yes. I want for people to listen and consider the idea and try to reach a compromise. I don’t have to be able to play at any time during the day and I don’t have to be able to make lots of noise for me to get what I want. I want the opportunity to play if I want to. I am willing to work around the rules that are made, but as it stands I have no hope whatsoever of sucess.

Well, thats it for a little bit, I will wait things the settle down or for more stuff to bubble up.

-Will

Leave a Comment

n: i think that this is the final clarification

Boy, I am wearing this .dis list out, ain’t I? I think that this is the last thing that I will be sending for a while; if I don’t stop e-mailing and start doing school work I won’t be here to e-mail much longer.

Okay, here are the messages that I got, they are fairly self-explanatory.

*-*-*

Subj:	RE: J: final part of my e-mail splurge

portion of the Bible he was one of the apostles.

disciple babe…

D

*-**-*

You said that you assumed Paul was an apostle since he wrote so much of the Bible. He was an apostle, many would say the greatest of the apostles. If you want a reference just read the opening verse of almost every one of his books. They usually say “Paul an apostle…”

One last mistake that I made. When I wrote my last journal I said that Paul was not an apostle, and erroneously so. Somewhere in my youth I managed to get the words apostle and disciple mapped as synonyms, when in fact they are not. D has already corrected me before, but when I was writing it popped out again. What I meant was that I assumed that Paul was a disciple.

I think that fills in most of my semantical errors.

See everyone in class.

-Will

Leave a Comment

n: clarification on my dump: rules journal

I got this today from H:

*-*-*

this is just a nit-picky kind of thing. A wasn’t for taking the games off of the computers. she voiced her argument against it, but the steering committee voted for it. so, the answer that she gives about the decision is the answer that the steering committee gave.

My reason for putting this in was not to poke at anyone, just to say where I got these buttons pushed. Both A and D have voiced this argument. I was stating that as a fact without a value judgement. The first part of my journal was going through the argument and getting heated up about it again so that I could dump well. I do not hold either A or D responsible for the decision. Regardless of how they stand I think that both of them are acting in good faith and I have a hard time getting angry at them.

i should have been more clear here. i wasn’t calling you nit-picky. :). i was saying that i was being nit-picky. and SJ thing came in and said that your statement about who said the games should come off the computers wasn’t correct. so, i was putting in my info on what actually happened. A didn’t want the games to be taken off and said so to the steering committee. but the SC voted it policy. she disagreed with the policy, but as director she will support the SC decision and not disagree in public. so, when she tells people why there aren’t games on the computers, she is reciting SC policy. what you said originally sounded like you were saying that it was A’s reason for why the games were taken off. it’s the SC’s reason and she was just repeating it. does that make sense? i’m sorry that i wasn’t more clear in what i was saying.

-*-*-

I have been giving the impression that A was in favor of having the games taken off, which was my impression. I wasn’t however explicitly meaning that when I originally wrote; rather, I was referring to perhaps two nights ago when David and I were in the lounge talking about the games being taken off of the computer, and A, who was sitting on the couches, presented the argument for taking them off of the computers. Her doing that was when I started thinking about the argument and that was what I was referencing. Her voice did sound a little funny when she was talking, but I dismissed it. I did take the argument for hers and apparently inaccurately so.

Just to let everyone have all of the information.

-Will

Leave a Comment

j: response to H's response to dump: rules

i’d like to see a rational journal on this so that the dump stuff can be filtered out. it would help me to see this a little more clearly.

I was thinking this morning trying to figure out what it mean when I said that I was dumping. I usually have “dump” associated with a negative journal venting anger, but my original journal had some things in it that were not angry at all. I had a long bit talking about the truth that was if anything positive. I still think that it was a dump though. I decided that when I say that I am dumping, it means that I am taking the top layer of filters off. The things that catch statements and examine them. So, what I write is more free form. In my last journal I got angry in places, sarcastic in places, and the big one that I usually try to cut out was I got manipulative in places. I had a couple of paragraphs that were pretty much blatant emotional appeals. What I was saying was not factually false, but when I was writing it I was writing from a deliberately skewed place, and I meant it to knock the reader off center and manipulate him.

I was trying to think of my rational statements on this and there are not many. I feel very strongly about honesty and about manipulation. Both of them are things that I am struggling with and have a hard time accepting the validity of.

Then D and A have both used the same argument when talking about keeping the computer games off of the lounge computers. Some people might use the games as an escape from reality so we won’t have them on there at all.

this is just a nit-picky kind of thing. A wasn’t for taking the games off of the computers. she voiced her argument against it, but the steering committee voted for it. so, the answer that she gives about the decision is the answer that the steering committee gave.

My reason for putting this in was not to poke at anyone, just to say where I got these buttons pushed. Both A and D have voiced this argument. I was stating that as a fact without a value judgement. The first part of my journal was going through the argument and getting heated up about it again so that I could dump well. I do not hold either A or D responsible for the decision. Regardless of how they stand I think that both of them are acting in good faith and I have a hard time getting angry at them.

The hell you say! We have a responsibility to reinforce other people’s delusions? I don’t want to hear ever again that the honors program is about shaking other people’s stereotypes. We shake those that it is safe to shake. When it comes down to the line and we are at risk of paying some price for honesty, how quickly do we forget.

no, we have the responsibility to grow up. when teenagers go through their revolt thing, they start throwing out all of the rules and take on a “party till you die” kind of attitude. some of the people here don’t get to that stage until they come to college. but they don’t have to stay there. it *is* possible to grow up and stop being a rebellious teenager (though i’ve seen some people fight that all of their lives pretty successfully).

we could let anarchy prevail and let everyone debauch themselves with the support of the honors program, but i guarantee that the honors program wouldn’t last real long after that. those students wouldn’t last real long after that. how many would end up dead or diseased? or just have to deal with really fucking up their lives?

I think that there is an assumption under both of these statements that if we give people adult privileges, then they will abuse them. If we give students the opportunity to debauch themselves, will they necessarily? Or might they decide to grow up and act responsibly? I do not think that the students can succeed unless they are put in a place where they can fail. If we treat other people like children why are we terribly surprised when they act like them?

I do not think that we can know how a person will act given a privilege and that it is not our right to control the situation so that they never have the opportunity.

I am all in favor of establishing a core set of goals and establishing guidelines to protect them. For example, say that one of the goals of the honors program is to help students excel academically, and to that end you make rules saying that if a student has an academic use for a computer, then that takes precedence over game playing. You have protected the values without having to destroy the privileges of other students.

I am not suggesting anarchy. I am saying that the honors program is more than just academics. It has the potential to be helpful to students in many different areas of their life including their work on discipline and their relaxation time and their hobbies. I think that prioritizing is important to protect your primary goals, but there is no reason that students cannot play games on the computers when they are not being used by anyone else. To say that it would be better to have the computers sitting unused rather than having people gaming is selfish in my opinion.

i wouldn’t call this paying the price for honesty. i’d call it paying the price for mindless rebellion. we can say, “sorry these people are wild animals and don’t ever hope for them to be adults.” and the university will respond with, “well, then they don’t need to be in a university.” so, is going buck wild what college is about? not last i checked. part of it is about growing up and becoming an adult. we can facilitate that or say, “screw the kids let them figure it out on their own.” if that’s the way we wanted it to be, then why are we in mentor?

Again, I am reading that if a person has freedom then he will party, and I disagree. A big part of the changes that I have gone through in mentor is realizing that it is not my place to control how other people live their lives regardless of how sure I am that my way is the right one.

One of my central tenants for this argument is that a person cannot grow unless they have room to do so. I cannot do the growing for another person. If I enforce my ‘higher’ standards on another person and make them look like they are grown up, when in fact they are not, then I am doing them a disservice. I am keeping their true self hidden. One day I hope to be a parent, if I were a good enough manipulator I might be able to keep him under my thumb for his whole life and he could grow up into a productive member of society that always does the honest thing and is punctual and whatever else you mean by “adult.” But it is not him. Until he drops all of the things that I try to make him into and decides for himself, then he will never be his own person. I think that the falling down and messing up is a very important part of learning to stand on my own. And if I always have a protector who never lets me fall, then I never learn to stand.

I am not saying, “go mindless and don’t pay attention to what is going on around you.” If you see someone who you think is being destructive to themselves, tell them. Try to get them to understand how you see it. This is what came up for me with M’s journal last week. I thought that his satire was a defense, so I told him. But i the end if whatever M decides to do is his decision.

Because commitment has to come from within I am incapable of making anyone into anything other that who they decide to be. I think that I have a responsibility to help them see perspectives that they might not have, but in the end the responsibility lies with them.

It is a difficult question, because there is also the issue of protecting my own integrity. If I have a gun and you want to kill yourself and we have discussed killing you and I believe that you understand my perspective; I do not think that I have an inherent responsibility to give you my gun. I have a responsibility to myself as well to protect my personal integrity.

In the case of the Honors Program, it has the right to protect its integrity by not allowing people to be destructive to themselves on its computers.

I do not think that this is really applicable though. Because it is not a foregone conclusion that anyone will abuse the privilege. It is impossible to know the future and it is impossible to know how people will handle computer games.

What are we doing when we go out and change our behavior so that other people don’t see this? Let me give you a hint: WE LIE TO THEM. We show them the parts of ourselves that we think that they will like to see. We are untrue to them and also untrue to ourselves. We do not even give them the opportunity to see and enjoy all of who we are. And they in return do the same to us.

i’d say that this is about learning to become more true to yourself. there are standards there and you can compare yourself against them. when you start really looking at yourself you can ask, “do i really want to do things this way?” that’s also part of growing up. the honors program gives them a standard. it’s not a lie, it’s a standard.

The statement that I got was not, “We would like you not to drink on this trip because…,” the statement was “Do not drink on this trip.” There was not a standard of conduct that the individual had power over, there was a rule imposed.

Yes, in my head I choose whether or not I am going to follow a rule, and I cannot be forced into a commitment. I am taking offense at how the Honors Program went about doing this. There is not the same amount of respect for me when someone says “Do this,” as there is when they say “Because of this reason this is what I want you to do.” The second respects my intelligence and decision making capacity.

If there had been a suggested code of conduct that was flexible, then I don’t think that I would have had any problem. A code of conduct treats me like an adult, a set of rules treats me like a child.

this also ties in to wisdom. what is wisdom? letting out all of the stops and living it up? or finding the deep truth in yourself through work and effort? learning which battles to fight and how you want to live your life?

You cannot party all the time or find the deep truth without freedom.

i do agree that there can be too much protection. it can be a fine line though. there are some things where making mistakes is the best thing for the person to do. there are other times where that is not the healthiest or best way to go about it. when power issues come into play with this, it can cloud the issue. and since a good deal of our lives deal with power issues, this is clouded a lot. :). but, we learn to feel out (being a felt-send kind of feel) the line between a rash decision and a wise decision.

This is another one of my basis, if I never get the opportunity to make a decision, like “Am I going to play computer games or am I going to do my homework?” then I never learn those skills of discerning between rash decisions and wise decisions. Like everything else, I think that the decision making process is one that must be practiced and by removing all of a students temptations we are not helping him to develop this process.

-Will

Leave a Comment

J: final part of my e-mail splurge

Here is the last part (for now) of my model with Paul, I am sending it along because there was a really big hole in my argument and K and Josh pointed it out to me.

*-*-*

Subj:	RE: j: here is a little thought of mine...

You are still not dealing with the fact that Paul became a follower of Christ after Jesus had already died and been resurected. Paul didn’t follow Christ after hearing him preach one day. He was still persecuting Christians after Jesus had died. He followed Christ after he saw him in a blinding flash of light on the road to Damascus. I do not believe there is a record of Saul hearing Jesus preach and if he did, it must not have had an effect at the time.

You are right, I was under the impression that Paul had actually met Jesus. I think that I was assuming that since he wrote such a good portion of the Bible he was one of the apostles. I can change the model once more to allow for this, but I don’t have time right now. Depending on the type of person that Paul was, it is not necessary for him to come into actual contact with the man Jesus to have the change that happened. If someone was speaking to Paul as an emissary of Jesus, then the association could have been made in the same way.

If I ever get through with my work then I’ll do one more scenario. Thanks to you and Josh Brady for pointing out this big hole in my system.

-Will

Leave a Comment

dump: rules

I have got a really big STJ shadow thing going on with rules as of late. It has come up several times. The first one was at the last cor meeting and it has just come up again in talking (arguing actually) with D.

The statement is “Some of the people would not be able to handle this freedom, so we will not let anyone have it.”

That just pisses me off. It is in my opinion one of the stupider things that I have ever heard. Has anyone ever read a short scifi story about the world where they make all of the people equal by handicapping those who go above the norm. I cannot understand how anyone can do this and it not be a load of manipulative bull-shit.

James was talking about it at the last meeting with drinking and said that because some people would not be able to drink responsibly we made the rule that no-one could drink. The rule there bothered me some, but I don’t like alcohol so it didn’t hit too hard.

Then D and A have both used the same argument when talking about keeping the computer games off of the lounge computers. Some people might use the games as an escape from reality so we won’t have them on there at all.

Dammit, how are people supposed to learn anything if there is always this nice governing body of some sort protecting me from all the ways that I might be tempted. It’s like Mark Twain’s story The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg; we don’t ever have any trials to strengthen us, so we never get strong.

Big Brother is my friend. He protects me from the temptations.

By what right do you decide that I don’t have the right to fail at my undertaking. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow path, I would hate it if I had to do any work for myself.

What about the statement “If something is worth doing, then it is worth doing wrong?” How do I have the chance to succeed if I never have the chance to fail?

Oh, but these are little things like computer games that don’t matter. Thanks for making that decision for me. I am glad that I don’t have to discern that and make that decision for myself. Here, get me an iron lung and a dialysis machine and you can have the rest of my brain as well.

These are little things, but at the same time they are not. Will I die if I don’t get to play Quake? No, in fact with my schedule I probably wouldn’t have time to play at all. But why restrict that option? If I am going to play all the time and escape from reality into the game, that is my right. This is my life; get the hell out of it. There are rules in place to protect the interests of other people who have work to do on the computers that is more related to school. The only person that I have the potential to hurt is myself, and you have no right whatsoever to stop me.

Is it right for us to make our rules based on the least set? Will we cut everyone down to the same size so that we protect those who are small?

Will we cut the wings off of the eagles? And in doing so we cut the wings off of those who might have risen to the challenge and become something better. But they will never get the chance to find out will they?

Ah well, they couldn’t have handled it anyway. It’s all for the best.

Because we have those who cannot handle the task no-one undertakes it. Idiocy.

Why not leave the power to decide what is right for the people in the hands of the people? If the governing body is at a loss for things to do with its time, perhaps it could work at offering the people more freedoms and possibilities rather than fewer. Is that not a nobler task? How much work does it take to deprive someone of something. I would be far prouder to be a part of the group that works at providing people with opportunities rather than the one that deprives them.

Perhaps they will fail. I cannot know that, and it is not my place to be the God of their life and make that decision for them. So long as the opportunity that I present has the definite potential for a positive outcome, then I have no qualms about presenting it. Especially if I am there to help the other person to deal with the challenges.

If there is the danger of people getting depressed and escaping into the games, is it not better to be able to see that this is happening? If we don’t put the games in the lounge are the people who would be getting depressed suddenly not going to be? No. The games are simply a symptom, and if we decide to take on the role of doctor is it not better to have the symptoms evidencing themselves right under our noses.

Thus, if people play responsibly we have no problem, and if they play irresponsibly it is an opportunity for us to see that there is a problem and cut it off.

The problem is not the games. And by not having the games all that we are saying is “go have your problem somewhere else, we don’t care enough to have to deal with it.”

*-*-*

Can I see the other side of the argument? Some. At least I can see another aspect of the argument, and I have a big problem with it as well.

Drinking and computer games are things that most people don’t think that honors people should be doing. “We have to present a good image.”

The hell you say! We have a responsibility to reinforce other people’s delusions? I don’t want to hear ever again that the honors program is about shaking other people’s stereotypes. We shake those that it is safe to shake. When it comes down to the line and we are at risk of paying some price for honesty, how quickly do we forget.

Someone remind me of what a great service we are doing to everyone by lying to them.

Do some honors students like to play computer games? Yes.

Do some honors students like to drink? Yes.

What are we doing when we go out and change our behavior so that other people don’t see this? Let me give you a hint: WE LIE TO THEM. We show them the parts of ourselves that we think that they will like to see. We are untrue to them and also untrue to ourselves. We do not even give them the opportunity to see and enjoy all of who we are. And they in return do the same to us.

We all get to waste our lives being lies and interacting with other lies. Is the truth such a frightening thing that we are willing to sacrifices our very lives not to see it? As for me I am sick of playing this game.

There is the possibility that we will suffer for being true. The world will keep playing the game, and it probably won’t like it that we are taking a stand. In the light of our truth, its own emaciated body becomes painfully obvious. There is a call to other people leave the shell of a lie behind that is so frightening that most people react with anger and hatred.

Someone said “the best things in life are free.” There couldn’t be anything farther from the truth, at least right now. Until the world is born again, the price of following the Truth is persecution by the world and the loss everything that you are, but is it worth it? Oh yes. A thousand times yes.

I am willing to venture that there is nothing else that is worth anything. When you live a lie, all of the things that you enjoy are lies and the merest shadows or reality. How can you explain to a blind man a sunset? How can you explain to a deaf man a symphony? How then can I explain to you the Truth? I do not know. All that I know is that it is the one thing in this life that I have found that is worth having.

*-*-*

What rights do our governing bodies have? Any that they chose to. If the council decides not to allow computer games on the computers, then I will abide by that decision or I will resign from the ASG. If the rule stands that there will be no drinking at conferences, then I will abide by that rule; I will accept it as one of the costs of going to conference. These things are small ones and they are related to groups that I do not have to be a part of. So long as I am making the decision to stay in the group I will abide by the rules. I will fight them until the breaking of the day, but I will abide by them.

Is this always true? No. If I was backed into a corner more, then I would fight to protect myself, but that is not the case here.

Thoughts?

-Will

Leave a Comment

j: quick thought on racism

Here is another little thought that I had.

Today in English 202 we were watching Passage to India which is a complicated movie that has alot of stuff it it that I won’t go into, but one of the central themes is dealing with racism. It follows Dr. Aziz who is an Indian during the early years of British occupation of India. He has the British pedestalized in a big way and spends most of his time trying to be British. He puts together a huge shindig for a British woman who he is trying to impress and takes her off to some caves where she freaks out and runs off. He goes on trial for attempted sexual assault. Somewhere in there he realizes that the British do not accept him as an equal and never will. His idea crashes and he goes to a British hater, vowing to move a hundred miles away into a real Indian town.

What this touched off was a thought that I had at conference and that I have had before. For the majority, noticing race is racism, but for minorities it is different. When Promise Keepers had their big meeting as a group of men it was frowned upon by some groups. If I wanted to start an all white persons club it wouldn’t go over well, but all black or all Indian or all Chinese organizations are all around.

At conference all but one of the students who were elected were black, and there is not an proportionate spreading of races. I as a white person am trained not to look at race because that is racism, but this standard is not imposed on african-americans, rather the opposite. When I am black and I focus on race I am protecting my heritage, it is accepted and perhaps even encouraged for me to allow race to influence my decision. It is interesting that the move to make blacks equal members of society has been going on for longer than has the move to make women equal members, and yet the amount of noise that the two groups make about being repressed is hardly comparable. Probably part of that is that the European males have to interact with women and have a harder time maintaining a picture of them as less than people. Whereas other races can be excluded and the picture can stand.

-Will

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »