Shades of Grey

I haven't blogged here in quite awhile, and although part of the reason for that is because life has been crazy-busy and unpredictable as of late, it also has a lot to do with the fact that I just haven't really known what to say anymore. I've listed a lot of upcoming ideas for blogs, and there are more that I haven't listed, so see: the problem is not that I don't have topics. The problem is that I have a hard time seeing why I should be one writing about any of these things.

I set up this particular blog specifically to put out my opinion about a number of things, mostly important, though some a little more trivial. But since I've started writing so much about morality and faith and such things, I feel like my opinion about a lot of it has changed. In particular, my feelings toward sharing them with other people have changed. I've realized that a lot of this is all wrapped up in one's personal journey, and I don't think I can really tell anyone else how they should be going about that journey. It seems to be something different for everyone, and I've found that you can't change someone's mind or heart about anything unless they're willing to change anyway... Of course, that was another topic I wanted to discuss, and now that I mention it, I find that I still do.

Well, I haven't said all this to say that I'm going to stop this blog or anything, though my intentions for the blog may have changed. Whereas once I wanted to put my opinion out there for the possible influence of others, now I just want to share my personal journey. If anyone gleans anything from my point of view, whether its because they agree or disagree, then good for you. If not, well, this is just how I see the world. I'm still quite open to discussion about these things too, if anyone wants to weigh in at any point...

But anyway, I haven't just said all this to declare my new position on my own blog, but also as an introductory to this installment's main topic, because today's topic is all about my shifting point of view... Once upon a time, I felt I was very good at seeing opposing viewpoints to any difference of opinion. In fact, I still think I have a knack for that. The thing is, though, that even though I had that, I still typically resided on one side or the other, so even though I could appreciate an opposing viewpiont, I was still firmly rooted in my own.

As I've grown older, though, I find myself less and less sure of one side or the other. While I once saw the world in black and white, I now find myself mired in a world of grey. Now, depending on the individual reading this blog, you may view this as a good or bad thing. Many people do, in fact, view the world in shades of grey and believe that that is how it should be. If you've been reading this blog for awhile, though, you know I tend to come from a Christian perspective in things, and Christians are not likely to consider this to be a good thing. We religioius types believe in moral absolutes. We believe in stark black and pure white; in absolute right or wrong. Typically speaking, that is...

I, for one, am less sure about moral absolutes than I once was. I believe they exist. There are definate rights and definate wrongs; I'm just not sure anymore that everything falls into a definate area of one or the other. I've come to think that greys do also exist and that we may indeed be lacking as Christians if we fail to see them. I think that there are, in fact, moral ambiguities that cannot be positively identified as good or bad... Maybe... I want to stress here that this is what I THINK, not what I KNOW. I expect for many to disagree with me, and that's cool; I hope you'll say so and why you disagree. If I'm wrong, then maybe someone can explain to me why. But in the meantime...

If there's one thing I'm certain about being good in being here in the grey, it's that it's a lot harder to judge others unfairly when you're living in the grey. I think one problem that a lot of Christians face is that they're refusal to see grey areas makes it hard for them to see the person through the sin. They can't separate one from the other, and their disapproval of a sin (or indeed something that they view as sin, whether it is in fact sin or not) leads to an unloving treatment of the person. This, I am certain, is about as far from "Christ-like" as one can get. Furthermore, I could do a whole blog about how we're most likely to be judgmental about the very things we ourselves have a problem with. In fact, I probably will do a whole blog about that sooner or later. It's the whole speck/log dilemma. But the problem as a whole is also more than that. I appreciate the need for admonishment as well, but how we go about such a thing should be a factor, should it not? And while many people will use the call for admonishment as an excuse for their behavior, I believe they often fail to appreciate that in our attempt to condemn the sin, we often condemn the person, and that is not our place.

But then, that might be getting off-topic a bit. Because the issue with finding myself seeing shades of grey has more to do with the question whether some things are, in fact, sins to begin with. Now, whether something is a sin or not seems like an easy answer. I'm sure that most Christians reading this would tell me so. Most of our answer to that question is to look at the Bible; that the Bible exists to make clear to us what is and is not a sin. And Lord willing, my issues with this answer is what I will be blogging about next.

Until then... I'd appreciate hearing what everyone else thinks about this: Does everything fall into one category or another: right or wrong? Or are there shades of grey (or gray, if you prefer that spelling)?

The Exception That Proves the Rule

In the previous post, "Words Gone Bad," I suggested the idea that words cannot be inherently bad, but what makes a word bad has to do with intention, and perception (and in a different way, definition as well). Although I stand by that idea, I now want to discuss the exception that proves the rule...

Its an exception in part because there are certain words that one should never use, but in another way it's not such an exception because the reason those words should not be used has to do with the three rules of defintion, intention, and perception. The words which shall not be named are words that are or have been used to denigrate, insult, or subjugate an entire group of people.

Now... by and large, one might say that it would be unnecessary to point out that certain words like those are just never appropriate, but there are some issues that come up regarding this that I found myself discussing recently, and I'd like to lay out my point of view, and it has a lot to do with the practice of "taking words back."

I was hanging out with some friends recently when the subject of taking words back somehow came up and one of my friends repeatedly used the n-word as he was attempting to explain why he thinks that if a word can be taken back, then all should have equal access to it or else its (reverse) racism, or else the word should simply not be able to be taken back at all. Now, I could do a whole blog (or several) on racism and probably will because its something that is used and abused as an issue, and nobody seems to properly understand it. BUT that's not what this blog is about. This is just about the word...

My view is that that word is simply never appropriate for me to use. As far as taking it back goes, though... well, there are a couple things. First off, the way my friend was saying the word and the way that black people who use the word are two ENTIRELY different things even before we get to the point of who's saying what. Finishing the word with "-er" just isn't gonna sound the same as "-a" any which way, and yes, it does sound somehow more inherently evil with the "-er" ending, whereas the other ending is arguably friendlier somehow.

Secondly, if a word has been used to insult an entire group of people, I would agree with the idea that only those people have a right to take it back. Here's why: the idea behind it is to deprive the word of its hurtful meaning, but the hurtful meaning is still there. If I were someone who was a member of a group that had a word like that slung at them, I could always be confident of its usage and meaning among those who could be hurt by that word in the first place, because they can understand what its like to be hurt by that word. Someone who is not a member of that group doesn't necessarily get it in the same way, and if someone else used that word with me, even if I knew that they didn't mean it in a harmful way, there's always going to be that nugget of doubt there.

The attempt to deprive a word of its meaning is an on-going one and it may never be so complete as to allow everyone equal access to that word. Which is why its arguable as to whether its even appropriate to try to "take back" a word at all, and there are those who feel that those words shouldn't be used by anyone, but should just be put to death as the horrible words they are. And I think they have a point. I could see it either way, really, but if (IF!) there's any merit to taking back a word at all, then I would say that only those who have been truly affected by that words meaning can even attempt it.

Anyone else should just bite their frakking tongue.

So now that I've made my point as to why certain people should NEVER EVER use certain words, I'd like to now contradict myself by offering yet another exception to the rule... You should NEVER EVER use certain words.... unless you're attempting to portray the use of those words. As a writer/filmmaker, I can think of a number of situations in which the use of such words that I would otherwise never use would better represent a certain kind of character or a certain situation. I don't really have a problem with that kind of usage. I would still generally cringe at the sound of certain words, but sometimes I think certain things must be portrayed in the arts, and in that circumstance, I don't think it should be offensive so long as it is used in that way.

Some upcoming blogs that are applicable to what I'm saying here will be "Fiction is not Truth" and also "You Can't Say Frak on TV!" although my next blog will probably be the flipside to the Faith blog: "Too Much of a Good Thing" or maybe I'll finally get around to "The Balloon Theory." I don't know, but all of these are upcoming blogs.

The Real World or Something Like It

This blog may get confusing because this is a topic that kind of confuses me...

Have you ever seen the movie A Beautiful Mind? It's been quite awhile, so I've forgotten pretty much everything about it except for one thing... After seeing it, I remember joking with my friend Christine about the possibility that one of us could be the imaginary creation of the other, a trick of an unstable mind. It always fascinated me: the idea that someone you know, that has played a major role in your life could not be real at all. How would you know?

How do you know that your memories are real? How do you know that what you remember ever really happened? Have you ever had a dream that was so vivid, you remembered it as a real occurrence, only to come to the startling realization later that it couldn't have happened? Is a dream that real a sort of reality all to itself? If you remember it, if you felt it, could that sort of be real?

When you really get down to it, a single person's perception plays a disturbingly large role in the formation of reality as any one person knows it. I mean, sure: just because you perceive something to be real doesn't necessarily make it so; a man may truly believe that he has the ability to fly, but he's still probably going to kill himself if he tries jumping off a tall building to prove it. On the other hand, there's definately something to be said for the things that may be possible through nothing more complicated than one person's persistent belief that they could. The improbability of flying men aside, I would never discount the power of belief; the things that can be accomplished through simple power of will.

But that's kind of getting off my original point. My original point is more about the state of reality itself. Case in point: Blue. What if blue didn't look like what you think blue looks like? What if blue as you know it is just a variant of purple and true blue is something that you've never actually perceived before in your life? You see it the way you do simply because that's how you see it, but seeing something a certain way doesn't mean that that's the way it is. Except that it sort of does. It does to you, at least. What if the whole world has a misperception of blue? Does it matter? Probably not since its just a color, but I think the idea is still relevant. Sometimes perception is reality. Blue is what blue is because that's how we see blue, and that's real to us even if that's not really what blue is. Make sense? Sort of/Not really...?

Well, here's something that really blows my mind... As a writer, I have a very real sense of who my characters are and the worlds in which they live. They are real to me in a way that I'm not sure can be understood by those who haven't experienced the same thing with their own creations. They even define themselves, make their own decisions, live their own lives even if its not a part of the story I'm trying to tell. Were my characters to climb out of the page and present themselves as living, breathing, thinking individuals not unlike what happens in The Dark Tower series, as weirded out as I would be, I can't say I would be entirely surprised, because they are that real to me. So (and this is the part that my mind has fun blowing apart on) what if that's what we are to God? Does that make us any less real? Does that make my characters MORE real? Or are they still less real because they're creations with a little "c" made by a creator with a little "c," rather than The Creator with a capital "C" and an important-sounding "The" at the beginning? Or does that make us more like a dream that God had once? Was that enough to push us into existence?

Of course, you all know that I personally believe that God made us with intention, but I feel its worthwhile to address the idea that we were a by-product of God's overactive imagination. And either way, I think it really calls into question the entire nature of reality... Okay, that's enough of that. Let's go back to the small-scale of this subject...

How important really is a single person's perception to the world around them? All I really mean to point out with this blog is that perception alone can have a huge impact. Someone perceiving something as truth, whether it is or isn't, makes that thing a reality to them, and that may or may be something that you can prove otherwise, and it may or may not be something that you need to or should prove otherwise. Either way: perception is integral. It can make or break the world around you, as well as how you respond to the world around you; whether you're able to cope with the world around you.

That's why I think the following things are important: 1) Its important to try to keep a handle on your own perceptions. Looking at the world in a positive way is going to help make it a more positive place. A dark view of the world is going to make it a darker place. 2) Bear in mind other people's perceptions. You can't reasonably be responsible for how another person is going to view things, but their own view is something to keep in mind. For one thing, they may have a better view, even if you're too dim-witted to see it. Even if that's not the case, with how much of reality may be shaped by how someone sees it, you could be stepping into an entirely different world just by being in someone else's life. Always good to know the customs of the worlds you visit. 3) You never know if there's some part of your world or how much of it that is all in your own mind. No need to be paranoid about that fact, but its something worth keeping in mind. Chances are, we all bear a few minor delusions that would be well-served by remembering numbers 1 or 2.

Okay then. Time to go run around with elves, battle orcs, and fly on giant eagles. ;D