A Sense of Death

Food is bland, and my drink has no flavor;

The taste of death has come to me.

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls,” said John Donne;

The sound of death has come to me.

I dread the wrinkled face in my mirror;

The look of death has come to me.

I smell the odor of my aging flesh;

The smell of death has come to me.

The pain in my bones, my back, and my head,

The touch of death has come to me.

Tempi - Specific Theory of Relativity of Chess

That title is perhaps ambitious. Tempi is the term in chess that defines the efficiency of moves.  It takes into account the number of moves made, which is equivalent to a measure of time, as well as the placement or quality of moves made, which is associated with position on the board or space.

In the game of chess, you may make moves that lose or gain tempi.  It's easy to lose tempi, but to gain it, you must take advantage of your opponent's weaknesses or error.

In life, there is nothing more important than timing.  Esther became queen because she was born for "such a time as this".  Being in the 'right place at the right time' is a common phrase to describe a situation when an otherwise average person stands out from peers in accomplishing an extraordinary task.

As in chess, gaining tempi in life can only be accomplished through careful attention to circumstances.  Having a big vision is not enough; you must also act on the vision.

In spiritual life, following God's plan requires you to know your mission and stay on task.  Jesus began His ministry by identifying His purpose when He showed up to the temple and read from Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

If you want to gain tempi in life by being in the right place at the right time, you only need to find the purpose and plan God has for you, and do it.

19   

The Seen and Unseen

I've seen the man behind the curtain;

He looks a lot like me.

I've never seen the man upstairs;

Is he the same as we?

The things we see can be defined

And they can be believed.

Things unseen cannot be trusted

Unless we be deceived.

Why was the curtain there at first?

Was it to hide the seen?

I do not understand this mask.

What can this knowledge mean?

If the seen is to be hidden,

How can it be embraced?

Why is hidden knowledge better

Than that which is not faced?

I've seen the man behind the curtain;

He looks a lot like me.

I've never seen the man upstairs;

Is he the same as we?

The things we see can be defined

But should they be believed?

Things unseen cannot be trusted

Or are we all deceived?

Society-Defined Morality = Group Think

Imagine if I attempted to impose Chess rules on a game of Checkers.  Even though these games share the same playing board, they have different pieces, tactics, and objectives.  Now imagine governing a game of Mancala using Chess rules.  These 2 games don't even share the same board!

Society-defined morality suggests that whatever society deems to be moral is moral.  Whatever society believes to be good (subjective as there is no objective measure) is good. 

This is a popular philosophy of those attempting to eradicate conservative, Christian values.  Many times, these are people who consider themselves intellectuals.  For a moment, let me put aside my Christian views on topics, and explore this topic logically.

If society defines morality, then if there is some future society that esteems cannibalism to be good, then cannibalism is good in that society as their morals are defined by their society.  Furthermore, if a current society in a foreign place determines that cannibalism is good, then cannibalism is good in that society.  One step further, if a previous society of Americans had determined that cannibalism were okay, then cannibalism was good at that time until American society changed its opinion.

Much like governing the Checkers and Mancala games by Chess rules, as long as we subscribe to the society-defined morality, one society cannot judge another society.  Americans cannot judge future or past American societies or any foreign societies based on our current morality because it is completely defined by our society.

In other words, to believe in society-defined morality, I must agree that slavery was good while society approved of it and homosexuality was wrong until society approved of it.  Americans should not meddle in the affairs of other nations (including the World Wars), nor should we attempt to influence other nations.  When Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," who defined injustice and justice?

To disagree and say that a former society was wrong about their assessment is to trade one oppressive set of norms (those of the conservative Christian) for our current society's as well as completely reject the originally professed position that society defines morality. 

When one thinks this through logically, it is easy to see that one of the following must be true:
A) society-defined morality is correct; no closed society can ever be wrong in its actions, but interactions between societies are messy (say when one society imposes its standards on another).
B) society-defined morality is incorrect; humanity is constantly evolving into a more perfect society with some abstract and undefinable yet absolute morality that we cannot understand until infinite time has passed.
C) society-defined morality is incorrect; there is an absolute standard set by some outside entity (consistent with the conservative Christian view).
D) there is no spoon.

Society-defined morality is the epitome of group think by its very definition.  Let the intellectuals cringe at their colleagues who profess such mindless submission to society-defined morality.  True, rules of conduct must be established by someone.  If there is no outside entity to set objective standards, then we are indeed all to be governed by this mindless group think where we can rise to the level of our collective incompetence.  Consider the "wave" at a sporting event... it is clear evidence that a committee will make a decision that is dumber than the sum of its members.