Translucence

Tale of a Recovering Gameaholic

2008-12-29T21:56:00.000-08:00

It seems like I've come across a number of Christians who wrestle with how to reconcile computer games with living for Jesus, whether it is a Christian concerned with their own interest in games or a Christian who is concerned for a loved one's interest in games.

Frankly, I do not have the answers to those questions, but I think that relating my own experiences with computer games might provide some clues that could help other people find answers.

The best place to begin would be the decade of my childhood, the 80s. There were a lot of cool toys in the 80s, but in the minds of nearly every boy in America one toy stood above the rest: Nintendo! (Note: Nintendo was just the company. The toy I'm referring to was technically the NES, but no one ever actually called it that.)

My father was adamant that I not own one. In fact, once somehow he actually acquired one for free, (either he found it in the trash or someone gave it to him) and it sat up in the garage for quite some time before he finally decided just to get rid of it. As can be imagined, that was a great source of controversy between him and I. In some ways I coveted owning a Nintendo more than anything else in my life.

Since I didn't have one, I instead spent my time playing with my toys and stuffed animals pretending I was playing a video game. I would create my own games and be both computer and player. By my teen years I would look back at this period of time and be grateful that I had spent it creating and imagining instead of letting other people do all the work for me.

When I was 10 years old my family was given its first computer, an already outdated IBM XT. Even though it was not a Nintendo, I was still ecstatic that I finally had within my reach a machine that could play some form of electronic game. At first computer use was extremely limited, and I was fine with that. Back then computer use seemed like a privilege. Eventually it became a right (at least in my mind).

After a while, I started perusing a boring looking book that had come with the computer. It was a book of code for simple BASIC games. Once I realized that the BASIC program was actually already on the XT and that program would be all I needed to make my own games, I went through the roof with excitement. I could make my own games! It was like a 10-year-old boy discovering that dinosaurs still exist!

And that's what got me into computer programming. I probably would never have gone to the library, checked out dozens of programming books, and spent endless hours puzzling over them if it wasn't for my drive to make computer games.

As I got into my teens our family eventually acquired more advanced computers, my taste for games matured as well. I wanted to play games that were dark and violent and full of magic, things my father was strongly opposed to. So I snuck them. Sneaking games into the house and playing them behind my parent's back became a way of life. I am not proud of that. I developed some very bad habits and raised subtle walls between me and my parents, though the Lord has been very gracious to me in addressing and correcting much of that in my adult years.

When I was in my late teens the Lord saved me and radically changed the direction I was heading. No longer did I want to make things for me, but for the Lord. And that's when the battle between me and computer games began. It did not take me long to see how I could use things like story writing and music to glorify God, but I could not find a similar channel through computer games. I felt like I had learned many positive things from games, but not many spiritual things. And even though at times movies and music can be a distraction to me, more and more I found so much potential harmony between them and the Gospel, while computer games seemed only to be a distraction for me.

While I still poured much of my time into making and playing games, I gradually began to move away from identifying with them. I felt increasingly guilty about how my gaming time seemed to be nothing but wasted time.

Then when I was in my early twenties I developed a complicated assortment of wrist and hand problems due to my extreme amount of highly un-ergonomic computer use. Suddenly computer use in any form was a limited resource. That significantly cut down on my game time.

Now I play games very infrequently. And in many ways I feel like a recovering alcoholic (not that I know firsthand what that's like). If I stay away from games I can kind of forget about them and the rest of life looks more interesting, but once I take a drink, suddenly the rest of life, including living for Jesus, seems to fade into the background.

And yet at the same time, I recognize how most of what I like about games is not fundamentally wrong, and are things that are wonderful in other contexts. Dynamics that are difficult to discern and analyze in any other forum than gaming. In fact, there are so many things I've learned from studying game design and game strategy that have genuinely benefited my life. But I tend to play the game long after the benefit is received, like spending hours sipping a cup that was quickly emptied.

In the past year or so God has given me some insights into how games can relate to the Christian walk at a fundamental level, and sometime I might outline some of what I've found. For example, Paul uses games as an analogy for his walk for the Lord in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. But for now my understanding of how games and God relate is still dim. I hope that eventually the Lord will give me enough puzzle pieces so that I can clearly see how to safely incorporate games into my walk with the Lord, but until then I am focusing my life on the avenues that are already lit for me.

Interoperability

2008-11-19T21:05:00.000-08:00

There are many distinctions between Microsoft, Apple, and Linux, but one of the most fundamental distinction is how they implement interoperability. In other words, how do different programs and technologies on a computer work together?

To demonstrate the differences, I will use an analogy of a business that employs many different people that do not all speak the same language. The question at hand would be "how can all these employees work together to accomplish common goals if they can't understand each other?"

The Apple solution is to fire everyone who doesn't speak a certain language. This approach makes for a great deal of simplicity; the employees don't have to worry about different languages at all. But that also means that the bulk of the potential employees go elsewhere to find work and only so much can be accomplished by the few remaining employees.

The Microsoft solution is to create a centralized interpretation department that acts as a middleman between all of the other employees. As long as an employee interacts with that department, they can indirectly communicate with any other employee without worrying much about what language the other employee speaking. The downside to this approach is that it requires more overhead, employees have to commit to using the interpretation department, and every now and then an employee runs into a limitation within the interpretation department and has to manually perform the translation.

The Linux solution is to leave the employees to deal with the translation problem themselves. If an employee speaks English and wants to work with an employee that speaks Japanese, either one or both of them will have to learn the other's respective language. Compared to Apple, this allows many more employees to be employed but at the cost of greater linguistic complexity. Compared to Microsoft, this allows employees to be less constrainted but at the same time they do not gain the benefit of being able to know a single language and still communicate with many other languages.

Also note that even though in the Linux business model employees are free to learn any language, oftentimes the language barrier minimizes how often people actually interact with people who speak a different language, so that more than in the Apple and Microsoft camps, in the Linux camp you will generally find more redundancy, such as the Spanish speaking people making a nearly identical product as the German speaking people, simply because it would have been too much work to pool their resources.

Even though the Linux route looks more distinct compared to the Apple and Microsoft routes, it is important to note that oftentimes groups of people within the Linux camp will gather together to create smaller interpretation departments of their own.

Much of this essay can be summed up in the following statement: Unity and Flexibility are inversely proportional.

Modifying Systems

2008-10-07T13:21:00.000-07:00

In this essay I will present arguments in favor of two related propositions:

1. A system cannot modify itself (it's definition).

2. A system cannot produce a system more advanced than itself.

(Technically, it would be more accurate to say "a system cannot modify it's fundamental functionality" and "a system cannot produce a system with functionality that the first system did not possess", but that is a subtle distinction that I don't think most of my readers (if there are any) will be affected by, and so I won't make things more complicated than they already are until someone else raises the issue.)

But enough disclaimers. Let's say you got into your car and drove to the local grocery store. Once you had arrived at your destination, people generally would not say that the system of that car had changed over the course of your drive. Its spatial coordinates would have changed, but not the system itself. Next, let's say that the car is low on fuel so you drive to the gas station and refill the fuel tank. Has the system of the car changed now that the amount of fuel in the car has increased? No. It is the exact same system. All that has happened is a variable within that system has been modified. To depict this, I will use simple computer code that is hopefully general enough for non-programmers to understand:


function drive_east()
{
  if (fuel > 0)
  {
    position.x = position.x + 1
    fuel = fuel - 1
  }
}


function refuel()
{
  fuel = max_fuel
}

Regardless of the state of the fuel variable, the underlying system will not change. To make an actual modification to the system a person would have to modify the core design of the car itself, such as by adding a secondary fuel tank, which would make the system look like this:


function drive_east()
{
  if (fuel > 0)
  {
     position.x = position.x + 1
     fuel = fuel - 1
  }
  else if (second_fuel > 0)
  {
     position.x = position.x + 1
     second_fuel = second_fuel - 1
  }
}


function refuel()
{
  fuel = max_fuel
  second_fuel = max_fuel
}

That would be a change to the system. Notice that now the system is fundamentally more complex.

There is an urban legend going around that it is possible to make robots that can "learn" and "evolve". I agree that robots can learn in one sense, but not in the same sense that humans conceptualize the idea of their own learning. (Though the understanding of human learning is beyond the scope of this essay.)

A robot can be designed to gather data and respond to that data. As long as that data remains outside the bounds of external modification it will not modify the functionality (and hence the fundamental design) of that system. The robot can process that input, but that input will never modify the process that processes that input. For example, it doesn't matter what kinds of radio signals a radio receives, picking up those signals will not turn that radio into a television.

As somewhat of a sidenote but also to further explain my point, a system's functionality can only be modified by a source it was not designed to process. For example a pier could be designed to process (or in other words, respond to) waves so that the pier is not affected by the waves, but it might be modified (flattened) by a tsunami because it was not designed to handle waves of that size.

As another example, let's say that someone opens up a machine and starts rearranging wires. And to crystallize the example, let's say that the machine has a very modular construction and was designed to have these wires arranged in a wide variety of configurations. In this instance there are two fundamental systems involved. (Three if you count the person.) There is a generic system of wires, which is not being modified by rearranging the wires because that is what the general system was designed to do in the first place, and a specific system of wires, which was the original configuration of wires before the person began rearranging the wires and effectively altered that system. The generic aspect of the system received an input signal that it was designed to process and thus was not modified by that input, while the specific system was modified because it was not designed to respond to that type of input.

My second proposition, that "a system cannot produce a system more advanced than itself", is a logical result of the first proposition. As I already explored in my essay on production, the product of an equation is identical to the equation itself. For a system to create a product with certain functionality that producer system must already contain that certain functionality. It's a simple matter of cause and effect. To expect anything else would be to expect a mold of a human's face to produce a face that has different features than the mold does.

If a system could produce a system with functionality that the producing system did not possess, that first system would be essentially modifying its own functionality, which would conflict with the first proposition. Both of these propositions are different sides of the same coin. They are either both true or both false.

A Fallen Oz

2008-09-26T23:36:00.000-07:00

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5)

As I've been cleaning theaters the past few months I've been hearing a number of the songs from the musical "Wicked". Two things quickly stood out to me: how devious the lyrics were, and how phenomenal the music was. That is not a very healthy combination for audiences to ingest. I wanted to hold those songs accountable to reality, but I felt like I did not know enough about the story. So this week I read the book.

Gregory Maguire is a very intelligent author. I did not expect the book to be as philosophical as it was, which was a pleasant surprise. My favorite kind of literature is fantasy that uses analogy to wrestle with metaphysical questions, and "Wicked" does that more than any non-Christian book I've encountered. So even while I heartedly disagree with the book, at least it was mentally stimulating. (Though for any Christian readers out there I would also heartily recommend you not read it due to it's trashy adult content.)

I also had not expected it to revolve so much around religion. Religion played a huge role in the story. However, this is where I also begin to disagree with Mr. Maguire. The primary religion in Maguire's Oz is called "Unionism", and my problem with it is that it carries with it much of the style of Christianity without the substance. It is a strawman. Audiences in general will most closely associate it with Christianity, even though it is not an accurate representation of Christianity. The faults that Maguire attributes to religion in general do not apply to Biblical Christianity in specific. The characters in the story that hold to the "Unionist" faith do not believe in things like the doctrines of salvation through grace alone (Galatians 2:16) and God's sovereignty (Romans 9:6-27), they have no metaphorical equivalent to Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:12-19), they have nothing reminiscent to a Biblical moral code, and those are just some of the discrepancies. Sure, without such things I agree that religion looks pretty stupid.

Then there is the matter of the nature of evil, which is brought up frequently throughout the book (though surprisingly not as much as religion, even though the book is titled "Wicked"). One of the supposed goals of the book is to show that Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West, really was a better person than most of the "good" people. And I believe he made a successful case. How did he do it? By removing any contrast. In Maguire's Oz there is no good. There is no transcendence. There is no hope. The "good" people were of course all hypocrites. The one possible exception might be Dorothy Gale, who is portrayed as the closest thing to a genuinely moral, loving character in the story. And yet Maguire's Oz seems to recoil away from her and in the end all we see is harm come from her apparent kindness. Also, in reading about the sequel, "Son of a Witch", it sounds like she becomes more hypocritical like the rest of the "good" people in this Oz.

At several points throughout the story Elphaba emphatically states that she has no soul. At one of those points another character suggests (quite astutely) that she is effectively trying to remove herself from any moral obligations. And yet even though the question of whether or not she has a soul is brought up at least a dozen times in the story, no one bothers to define what in the world a soul actually is, which makes the question ultimately meaningless. Besides, in Maguire's Oz there is no eternal judgment, so in the long run whether you do good or bad won't matter, and in light of the conduct of all the characters who supposedly do have souls, using an Oz soul as a moral compass is worth less than a bullet to the head.

Those are just some of the concerns I had with that book. In many ways I am impressed with Gregory Maguire's intellect, but ultimately it does not look like any of that brilliance has brought him any hope, nor any hope to offer through his literature.

Scatman

2008-09-22T21:01:00.000-07:00

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1 Corinthians 26-29)

Once again I delve into my favorite passage from the Bible. I just can't get enough of it. In this blog entry I'm going to be relating that passage to a man that probably was not a Christian, and taught some humanistic ideas, but at the same time reflected many of the principles Paul conveyed to the Corinthians.

The man I am speaking of is John Larkin, also known as Scatman John, or just "The Scatman". Here is a music video of his most famous song, aptly named "Scatman".

The more I watch that video the more I fall in love with it. But more on that later; for now I want to bring attention to the lyrics of the song, which are little hard to pick up. Below is the lyrics that interest me the most:

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact
Don't let nothing hold you back
If the scatman can do it
So can you
Everybody's saying that the scatman stutters
But doesn't ever stutter when he sings
But what you don't know
I'm gonna tell you right now
That the stutter and the scat is the same for you
I'm the scatman

Larkin was born with a severe stutter, but he used that as a strength by channeling it into some of the most phenomenal "skat" ever recorded. But I think his stuttering was more beneficial to him than just that. I've read what many people said about Larkin, (who died in 1999), and one thing that stands out was his humility, and a passionate concern for the sort of people the world tends to ignore. I suspect that those were direct results from his handicap. That and God's grace on his life.

The one part of those lyrics I disagree with is the aspect of "you can do whatever you want to do." That is the opposite of the point I am trying to make. As Jesus said in John 15:5, "apart from me you can do nothing". It is not in our own strength that we can overcome our limitations, but through Jesus Christ. (Romans 8:37) But I do agree with Larkin when he says "everybody stutters one way or the other". I think that line conveys a similar sense of humility as the passage I referred to earlier in 1 Corinthians. Everybody stutters one way or the other. It is God who uses our stuttering to praise Him.

And to me that music video is a great example of God using the weak things of the world to shame the strong. Here you have a jazz musician somewhat thrown into a "hip" Eurodance setting that I'm certain he did not completely relate to. (You can see all of the jazz imagery paying homage to what he would normally be doing.) I mean look at him! He looks like he stepped out of the 1930s! And yet he pulls it off flawlessly, largely due to his total lack of pretensiousness.

Throughout the music video he is accompanied by a host of unusual characters. Some of them are what convention would say is "cool". Some of them are what convention would call decidedly "uncool". And yet they all blend together as a beautiful mix of humanity. People from all nations and all walks of life, unified through the acknowledgment of their own weaknesses and yet not being worried about what people think of them but instead rejoicing because they've been set free from all those things. To me that is an unintential, and yet nonetheless wonderful picture of the Church of Christ.

(I have to also say that that music video is phenomenally edited. While there are some edits that don't seem to quite work, on the whole it is mesmerizing and whoever made it must have put a lot of work into tweaking the timing of the footage so that it could fit so harmoniously with the music.)

Complexity

2008-06-05T00:21:00.000-07:00

Below are two images I created using algorithms. Which image is more complex, A or B? Or are they equally complex?

Now here are two more images. Which is more complex, C or D? Or are they equally complex?

For the first question I assume that most people will choose B. For the second question I assume that most people will choose D. There is a certain sense within which the second question could be answered in that manner, but not when paired with the first question, and I will explain why in a moment.

More and more I am noticing an ambiguity in the use of the idea of complexity. I have observed it in both average joes and in the most venerated of scholars. They will use the word "complex" to refer to very different ideas, sometimes within the very same sentence. This is not a good thing, for this vague inconsistency is allowing irrational propositions to sound sensible.

I created the quiz at the beginning of this essay to demonstrate that inconsistency. In the first question, B is clearly more complex than A. But the second question is not as straightforward. In one sense the images look very different. And yet they were built with identical algorithms. The only difference is that with image D the range of the equation was greater. You could increase the scope of the algorithm to encompass millions of pixels and the pattern would never really change. In essence, compared to the first image, the second image is just more of the same.

If you were to reduce images A and B to their most simple definitions, (the equations used to generate them), B would still be more complex than A. But if you were to reduce C and D to their simplest definitions, their complexity would be identical. ( Note that while what I am talking about is similar to the idea of Irreducible Complexity, it is not the same thing.)

I am not going to try to define complexity in this essay. That is a vast and complex subject. I am simply bringing attention to a particular slice of complexity. I will however, note that usually definitions of "complexity" involve the idea of multiple parts connected to each other. What I am showing in this essay is that there is an important distinction between a system comprised of many identical parts and a system that is comprised of many parts with different essential attributes. To better explain this I will return to my example of the images.

Most people would say that image B is more complex than image A, and yet the images themselves contain the exact same number of pixels. To relate that idea to my last paragraph, they have the same number of parts. And yet when the human mind perceives image A it can summarize it as simply "a square comprised of pixels all of the same color", while the human mind cannot summarize image B into such a neat package.

Another way to illustrate this would be to take a car and glue hundreds of small random objects onto its surface. In one sense that car would become more complex because it would be comprised of many more parts than it had been, but since none of those parts would actually be essential to the car's functionality of getting its occupants from point A to point B, in that sense the system of that car would not be any more complex than it had been.

This ties back to my last post on how Process = Product. When I created the algorithms that generated those images, I could have had one of those algorithms additionally check my email and defrag my hard drive, which would have made the algorithm much more complex but as far as the image that it generated, the image would not have changed. Within the context of the generated image those additional functions would be superfluous. Mathematically, that would have been the equivalent of taking the following equation:

x = 5

and changing it into:

y = 1
x = 5 + y - 1

In one sense the second equation involves more parts, but in another sense it is just as simple as the first equation.

So in summary, all I am doing in this essay is trying to define and describe these two different dimensions of complexity. Ideally I should have a term to describe the first type and a term to describe the second type but I don't yet have any good terms for these ideas. I'm hoping that perhaps a reader of this essay will know of terms for these ideas that already exist and inform me of those terms.

On Production

2008-05-18T20:09:00.000-07:00

Most of the work I have ever done has involved industry. I like to make stuff. And not only do I like to make stuff, I am also fascinated by the processes and tools used to make stuff. I am always trying to refine my creation methods and develop new tools to support me in my creative endeavors.

Sometimes I have heard people say things like "I don't care how you do it, just get it done and "all we're concerned about is the end product." I think there is an important point in those statements, but I think their language is misleading. It is true that the work involved in creating a product is simply a means to an end; the only reason you're doing what you're doing is for the end result. However, the statements above imply more than just that, and what they imply is an inaccurate relationship between process and products.

Through my studying of production and its many forms, I have come across a principal that at first looks absurdly simple and yet is more deep and meaningful the more I think about it. This principle can be described as the following:

Process = Product

In other words, the process is the product. They are interchangeable. For instance, if any change is made to a process, due to the laws of causality, that change in the process will be reflected in the product. Likewise, if I make any modifications to the product, I have, in essence, equally modified the process.

Now, someone might say "Wait a minute! What if I have an assembly line and I replace one of the workers on the assembly line: Bob, with a new worker: Sue. I would have just then modified the process without modifying the product." But that argument is misleading. If Sue performs her job so similarly to the way Bob did that there is no change to the product, then the process was not really modified. But if Sue does not perform her role in quite the same way that Bob did so that the product changes to some degree then yes, the process was modified. The scope of the process that is associated with that product only extends as far as any factors that actually affect the final product. For example, within the described context of this scenario, the name of the person on the assembly line has no impact on the product.

This principle can be seen reflected in the moviemaking process. If a producer is making a movie, he doesn't simply look for the all-around "best" people to make a movie; he hires people that will most likely achieve the specific vision he has for that movie. If it is a dark movie, he may look for a composer that tends to write dark music. If it is an action movie, he may look for a director who has a passion for action movies.

It is the same idea with molds. I once was on a tour of a business that produces molds that in turn are used to produce various mechanical parts. Near the beginning of the tour, the owner of the business explained to us tourists that a mold is not simply a hollow cutout. I don't remember his exact words, but I think his general point was that a mold was all of the things that went into defining the final part that was produced.

I think in his explanation he was mainly referring to the different physical parts that surrounded the traditional idea of a mold, though if one were to continue along in the same direction he was heading, that entire business is, in a sense, one giant mold. For example, while the secretary may not be a direct influence on the molds produced by that business in that her operation does not define the distinctions between one mold that is produced from another, her function still influences the state of the molds that are produced by that business. Unlike the specific physical parts of a mold that define the product's shape, her function is necessary for the operation of that business and thus defines a more general property of all of the molds: whether or not they exist.

I have found this principle of "Process = Product" very useful in approaching artistic endeavors. For example, I've heard that Stephen King generally writes his stories from beginning to end without having any idea what he will write next. This results in stories that have a very natural, uncontrived flow, but at the same time lack a strong sense of purpose and cohesion. As for me, I do not write stories in a linear fashion. I start with the overall mental state I want my audience to arrive at through reading the story and then work backwards finding events and elements that, when put in the right combination, will achieve the desired effect upon my audience. This tends to result in the opposite of a Stephen King novel: stories that have a strong sense of purpose and cohesion and yet feel contrived and surreal.

Each of those methods of story construction result in very different types of products. Sometimes I think people see writing as simply a matter of sitting down and putting a lot of time and effort into putting words on paper, and yet it is much more complicated than that. The selection of the process that an author uses in how to go about putting words on paper puts strong constraints on what the final product can be.

It is possible to change method halfway through production, but if you do so keep in mind that what you have done is selected a process that is a compound of both your first and second methods. Even if you start from scratch when you switch to the second method, the product would probably still be influenced by your work using the first method, and thus the time spent using that first method would still technically fall within the scope of the process that resulted in the final product. In other words, the use of both methods shaped the definition of the finished story.

I could go on and on giving examples, but I think that should give a basic idea of the relationship between a process and its product

The Magician of Chance

2008-05-14T18:44:00.000-07:00

"There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul. . . . When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth?" - from "I Robot" (2004).

While that is a cool quote, I chose that as a preface because it summarizes what this essay is confronting. I am amazed at how the general populace of this age have somehow acquired the idea that if a system becomes complicated enough and implements enough randomness it eventually takes on mystic properties. Perhaps the leading scientists of this age know better, but if so, they are doing very little to correct the ideas of the general public.

This concept is throughout our media. How many superheroes have gained their powers through some catastrophic accident, usually involving toxic sludge? I haven't yet come across anyone who actually believes that such a thing could happen. I propose that people generally assume that scientific accidents don't give people superpowers because they've never heard of it really happening. But I've never heard anyone questioning why that wouldn't happen.

Then there's robots. Isaac Asimov pioneered the idea that human advances with AI would eventually surpass our understanding; that due to the incredibly complex programming within the robot's circuitry it would become smarter than it was designed to be. Asimov's robots were generally benevolent, but this idea has been most prevalently seen throughout media in the scenario of robots advancing to the point of taking over humanity, such as in movies like The Terminator and The Matrix.

So where is the line beyond which systems get so complicated and random that fantastic stuff starts happening? Is there such a line?

There are two main ingredients to this belief system: chance and complexity. Hopefully in a later essay I will address complexity, but in the remainder of this essay I will be briefly addressing chance and its relative: randomness.

chance –noun
1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency: Chance governs all.
2. luck or fortune: a game of chance.
3. a possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty-percent chance of success.

ran·dom –adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

Here I will demonstrate a very simple analysis of chance. Many of you have probably already heard this. Let's take, for example, a dice roll. A person throws the die onto the table and it lands on a random side. But is it really random? If you knew how that person's brain was interacting with the nerves and muscles and that person's hands and arms and knew all of the physical factors with the air resistance and how the die bounced along the table surface; if you had all the factors involved in that die toss you could use mathematics to precisely calculate what side that die would land on.

The only thing that makes that die roll seem like chance is the fact that we don't have all the factors. Chance is purely a subjective term dependent upon the subject's knowledge. Since we do not have all the factors, we gather together all the factors we do have, organize them into equations, and determine what the most likely outcome would be.

The process of estimating odds like that is called statistical probability. With a dice roll the odds are generally evenly divided between the six sides, but most of life is much more complicated, such as calculating the probability that this essay is actually worth the time spent to read it. That would be far less straightforward. Assessing probability is a foundational part of human decision-making. It is what allows us to make useful decisions without being omniscient.

I should clarify that randomness is not the same thing as chance. The essence of chance revolves around the issue of predictability, while randomness can exist independent of that issue. For example, it is possible, with the right knowledge and tools, to accurately predict what numbers will be generated by a computer in a game of solitaire. That is because those numbers are generated through a very mechanical and man-made process involving time and lookup tables. And yet even if you were to accurately predict the resulting numbers, they would still technically fall within the definition of randomness, for whether or not you could predict them, they would still have no definite aim, reason, or pattern.

In all these examples what I'm trying to do is unmask the mystery surrounding chance. Neither chance nor probability nor randomness are sources of power that can be harnessed. They are not natural forces. They do not cause things to happen. They are simply ways of looking at life that we have developed to help us do the best we can with the limited knowledge at our disposal.

(Now, as an aside, I am open to arguments that those actually are forces in that ignorance, the thing from which they derive meaningful existence, could possibly be considered a force and arguably even a good force at times, for when it comes to things like exploration, discovery, and many forms of entertainment, the value of such things is dependent on ignorance.

Science is not Reality

2008-05-02T12:24:00.000-07:00

sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ [sahy-uhns]
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

There is a myth I've been coming across in one blog after another that equates science with reality. It is possible to have overlap between the two, but they are never the exact same thing. Reality is the way things are. Science is the way we think things are.

Right off, if anyone is going to use proper English, to say that your beliefs are based on science is absurd. That is because many people throughout the world have reached many conflicting scientific conclusions. To claim that your beliefs are based on science is to say that the foundation for your beliefs is contradictory.

But I don't think most people are using the proper English definition of the word "science" anymore. When people refer to "science" they are referring to some implied subdivisions of science; not the collective views of all scientists but the views of specific scientists. Most commonly, I've found that when people refer to science, they are referring to popular opinion. Popular opinion should not be underestimated and should be carefully weighed, but just because a large number of people believe a fact does not change reality. There was a time when practically everyone believed the world was flat, and yet that did not make it so.

Science is always changing because people keep aquiring new data that shows that previous theories were innacurate. Reality never changes, but science is always changing. With that in mind, should a person be so confident in claiming science as the foundation for their beliefs?

I've been browsing the web for various people's responses to the movie Expelled. Whether or not Intelligent Design or Evolution are viable beliefs, I'm amazed at the number of people who are against the movie and yet prove it's central point. People have become so entrenched in their own worldviews that they equate that with reality. Evolutionists are not the only people who have ever ceased to question their own perspectives, Creationists througout history have done that as well, but that fact does not mitigate the responsibility of the present scientific establishment.

(As a quick clarification of my title, even though science and reality are not the same thing, science is still a part of reality. Even if someone were to believe a lie, in one sense that lie would still be a very real, genuine lie. So whether or not a scientific conclusion lines up with reality, science is still very real if understood within its context of being a classification of human knowledge.)

Survive or be Useful?

2008-04-30T19:38:00.000-07:00

Last week I saw the movie Expelled, and I just saw it again this evening. That movie has made a big impact on me. In a later post I might go into more detail on that, but for now I want to focus on relating software design to the theory of biological evolution.

I do not know much about biology. But I do know a lot about system design, and the rules of system design are as universal as the rules of logic. Humans are systems. Dogs are systems. Cells are systems. Molecules are systems. Everything in life can be broken down into systems and systems within systems.

Here are some examples of system philosophy:

A system cannot produce a system more advanced than itself.

Mankind has never yet been able to design a system that improves itself, and there is no evidence to suggest that such a feat is possible.

Hierarchy is the best organization of systems, and all of life can be neatly conceptualized into hierarchies.

Modularity is an essential property of a good system.

Those are just some examples of the abstract world I love to study.

From a systematic point of view, evolution is illogical in multiple ways. Many scientists claim that all the evidence points to evolution, but that is simply not true. They are only referring to specific evidence. I am talking about general evidence which, if they wish to maintain rationality, they must be accountable to.

Like I said, there are multiple ways in which evolution is systematically illogical, but to apply modularity I will only address one of them in this post. And the first is this: evolution, or at the least the most popular interpretations of evolution, are intrinsically based upon natural selection. I would argue that, from a systematic point of view, natural selection could never account for the current state of the universe.

To begin, I need a definition of natural selection. Unfortunately, I've had a hard time finding a definition of natural selection. It seems that much of the people in this world do not understand what a definition is anymore and are busy defining the class that natural selection is inside instead of the attributes of natural selection that distinguish it from everything else. Both of the terms "evolution" and "natural selection" are so ambiguous that it makes it very challenging to argue against evolution.

Whatever the case, the common trend I've seen in most explanations of natural selection is "survival of the fittest"; the idea that the organism with the best ability to survive in it's present environment will continue to exist after the weaker organisms go extinct.

And therein lies the rub. The driving factor within natural selection is survivability. To an evolutionist, the most important value an organism can have is how well it can maintain its existence and propagate. That sounds nice in theory, but in the real world good systems do not work like that. In the study of systems, it quickly becomes evident that the best systems are when the existence of organisms is maintained based upon functionality, not how well that organism can survive over its fellow organisms. Natural selection leads to anarchy. Good system design leads to community.

Functionality does play a role in the theory of evolution through symbiotic relationships, but that is still only a fraction of what is needed to produce a good system. Within natural selection collective functionality is subservient to individual survivability. How often will an employer hire people based upon how well that person will outlast his fellow employees? I've never seen it. An employer hires people based upon their usefulness to the company. Now, a useful employee will last longer in that company than a useless employee will, but notice that in that scenario the survivability is derived from the functionality, which is the reverse of natural selection. Throughout the bulk of existence functionality reigns. However, there are places in human experience where survivability is prioritized over communal usefulness. Some examples are: Slums, prisons, mafias, orphanages, beaucracies, etc.

A system is a collection of organisms working together to accomplish a common goal. If at least some part of that goal is not beyond the scope of that system, then that system is useless. In programming terms, it is a node with inputs but no outputs. It takes but doesn't give. Natural selection does not care if a system is useful or not. In a world of natural selection, it would be perfectly plausable to have useless systems thrive while useful systems vanish.

There is a funny sense in which evolutionists are like lukewarm Christians. It is a common trap for Christians to fall into thinking that being a Christian only matters on Sundays, and the rest of the week they live a life largely disconnected from the religious beliefs they claim to hold. Many Christians have a sense that God was sort of a thing of the past; that he was more real in ancient times than at present.

Evolutionists in general are the same way with their beliefs. They believe the laws of evolution applied to the "millions and millions of years" that led up to the present, but don't really consider those laws to be in effect within their moment to moment lives. "The world was developed by organisms fighting against each other, but now all those organisms are working together." Evolutionists put so much effort into justifying how evolution can explain the way things came to be that they don't put any effort into justifying how evolution can explain how things maintain their operation now.

If the laws of natural selection suddenly came into effect to the degree that evolutionists claim that they are, the human body would tear itself apart in competition. My heart and my lungs have a symbiotic relationship, but do they know that? My heart does not need my hand in order to function, so why doesn't it just stop pumping blood to my hand? But of course that is absurd. The organs of the body work in harmony. They are not competing with each other and no one except perhaps some biologists question that. But if natural selection is true, then they should be competing with each other. If you believe in natural selection than you should be afraid that your stomach would quit passing nutrients to your intestines because food passes through the stomach first, making the stomach the more powerful of the two organisms. If you say that is absurd, I agree with you, natural selection to that degree is absurd. If you say that natural selection does not work that way, then I will point out that if natural selection is not a universal law then there is no way it can account for every step of biological development.

As another example, take green evolutionists. I have heard many say that man has upset the balance of the ecosystem. But if they believe in evolution then there is no such thing as a balance of the ecosystem. To say such a thing is to suggest that all of these animals killing and devouring each other actually results not in a system of natural selection but in a system of natural harmony. That if humans had not come along there would actually be some state of status quo.

To further explore that, let's say there were only two species on the planet, the eaters and the eatens. Since the eaters live off of the eatens, the eaters are the more powerful of the two species, and yet they need the eatens to survive. Now, what would happen if the eaters wiped out the entire species of eatens? They too would go extinct. Thus it would be in the best interest of the eaters to keep the eatens alive.

And yet that is not natural selection. To keep the eatens alive would be to value their functionality over their survivability. They are more useful than they can survive. But if what evolutionists say is true and nature is in fact blind then in such a case both species would be wiped out. For the eaters not to wipe out the eatens would require an assessment of the larger picture. In short, it would require intelligence.

I think I'll stop for now. This isn't even touching the tip of the iceberg, but it's enough to start. As a quick closing point, natural selection is an inherently selfish theory. It proposes that the development of life as we know it was driven by exclusive selfishness (not simply thinking about yourself, but only thinking about yourself.) I believe in the Bible, and it teaches that our selfishness is not exclusive, but is derived from our functionality. As John Piper would say, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him" and "God is the only route to final and lasting happiness". While evolution does not line up with systematic evidence, God does.

Refactoring Translucence

2008-04-28T12:23:00.000-07:00

When I first started Translucence, I approached it sort of like a book with each post being a small chapter. However, I've realized that I've put far more constraints on this blog than I should have and those constraints have reduced both its usefulness and how much effort is required of me to post anything. (I think if most bloggers were required to put as much effort into their posts as I did, blogging in general would go extinct.)

To remedy the problems in my design of Translucence, with my last post I broke the mold a little by moving away from the book model, and now I'm going to make this blog even more laid-back by broadening its scope to include computer programming as a topic and making it more like a traditional blog where everything is more random and off the top of my head.

And since I'm doing that, I might as well clarify my fascination with God, art, and computer programming. Up front, I'll point out that the other two are subservient to my interest in God. Art and programming are simply means to an end, and God is the end.

I've seen a lot of people combine God and art, but for most people computer programming would be the "odd man out" since I haven't seen any analogies made between God and computer programming, and for most people art and programming are practically antonyms.

And yet for me these are all integral. Eventually I hope I can reach a state where I can freely say that my profession is "Abstract Engineer", because that is a more accurate job description of what I do. Saying I am a graphic artist or a software engineer just doesn't cut it. Those are simply tools to allow me to explore and utilize the world of abstractions that God created.

For example, I approach art like an engineer. I analyze it as deeply as humanly possible and develop systems to construct art. Every work of art is a system. Most any artist I've ever come across has cringed when they come face-to-face with exactly how I go about making art. To artists in general my methods seem very constrained, coldly rational, and cumbersome. And yet even though I have received many critiques on my art, none of them have ever been about it being constrained, coldly rational or cumbersome. Most people undervalue software engineering, and one of my goals is to show people how the principles I've learned through software engineering apply throughout life.

The same goes for my theology. The foundation of my beliefs is the Bible, but my understanding of logic and conceptualization is heavily derived from my experiences with computer programming, and so is my understanding of hermeneutics (the science of accurately interpreting the Bible). And conversely, in both art and software design I can see the staggering order and patterns that unquestionably point to an intelligent Creator of this universe. Computer programming, like everything else in this world, is another thing that displays the glory of God.

In Awe of God

2008-04-03T11:41:00.000-07:00

"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it." (Psalms 139: 6)

In this post I'd like to present a game LucasArts created in 1995 called The Dig. Though it's gameplay was boring and the ending was kind of corny, the rest of the story, the dialogue, and it's art was a major inspiration in my own endeavors.

To me this game is all about mystery, wonder, and vulnerability. In the story of The Dig, three people are sent into space to blow an approaching asteroid away from Earth but the asteroid turns out to be a spacecraft of unknown origin that takes them to a distant planet. They find themselves completely separated from the rest of human civilization and everything that is familiar. As you explore this alien and abandoned world, there is a sense of loneliness throughout the game. You feel cut off from normal comforts and anchors. And yet it gives the game a more spiritual quality. Without that sort of isolation I don't think we can experience true wonder.

It's interesting that in the bulk of science fiction aliens are generally smarter and more powerful than we are. Why is it that so many staunch humanists would create fiction that makes humans look comparatively pathetic? Why would people be fascinated by situations where humans are faced with alien technology that is beyond their comprehension? Why are people fascinated with mystery, which at its essence capitalizes on humanity's lack of knowledge?

I think it is because humans were designed to stand in awe of God. People naturally pursue trying to make themselves God, and yet they cannot escape the fact that they will be most satisfied when they are stripped of their self-confidence and are overwhelmed by how much bigger and beyond their comprehension God is.

The Dig (DreamMeister Mix)

My favorite aspect of the art of The Dig is its music, which was created by Michael Land. It's soundtrack was released on CD, which is a phenomenal collection. Above is a mix I created of some of my favorite parts of the game soundtrack that were not included in the album. Listen to this music and behold the majesty of God.

Someday I hope to create a science fiction story that creates the same sense of wonder that The Dig did, but would have all of that generated wonder and awe point to God in a more direct and unquestionable way.

Art Crucified

2007-10-16T21:50:00.000-07:00

Several years ago as I watched Peter Jackson's rendition of the Lord of the Rings it struck me how there were story elements within those movies that existed in the original books but only in much fainter ways, almost as though J. R. R. Tolkien had included certain elements within his books for some simple, half-conscious reason and Peter Jackson had jumped on those ideas and expounded upon them and made them more meaningful to the audience.

I was impressed by the fact that Peter Jackson did not enhance the story so much by adding external ideas as by taking ideas that were already in the story and taking them to their fullest implications so as to create results that were probably not intended by Tolkien but fit within the themes and conclusions his stories embodied. It was here that I concluded that the reason such a series of events was able to take place was because within his story Tolkien utilized principles and themes that were much bigger than he was. Things that existed before he did and will continue to exist long after he passed away. Things much bigger than The Lord of the Rings.

I concluded then that truly great art is art that is bigger than the artist.

For me, the opposite example of this principle is Shrek. I personally dislike that movie for several reasons. The reason that pertains to the immediate topic is that along every turn the makers of Shrek seemed to be screaming out "Look at me!” and “Look what I can do!” From the standup comedian-style dialogue to the cynical way it tore down the very medium of fairytales that it’s deriving power from (a principle I don't have time to go into here), I found its pretentiousness insufferable. A lot of people like Shrek, but I have a suspicion that in order to really enjoy the movie you have to avoid following its propositions to their logical conclusions. (Note: The second Shrek movie fixed many (though not all) of my frustrations with the first movie. It is much more sincere and thoughtful.)

But I'm not writing right now to criticize Shrek. My main reason for bringing it up was because when I contrasted Shrek with The Lord of the Rings it further refined my idea of a good artist by concluding that the best works of art are the ones where its creators fade into the background and the audience forgets that it was even created. I realized that what really bothers me about Shrek wasn't that it was saying “Look at Me”, but that it’s creators were saying “Look at me!”

I like what Christian Bale had to say on this subject of artists and their art:

"I want to be an actor, but I think it's nice to stay invisible. It's the opposite of being a rock star. With rock stars it's just you writing and performing. But an actor should never be bigger than the film he's in." - Christian Bale, Spin Magazine March 1996

I think that is an impressive stance for an artist to take; that sacrifice of ego makes the artist far more effective. But even though I believe there is some value in all of that, the Bible has convinced me that it is not enough for the artist to fade into the background. For Christians the ultimate goal of art is not to glorify art, but to glorify God. Because of this, it is not enough for Christian artists to fade into the background, their art needs to fade into the background as well, so that the primary thing the audience sees is God.

To explain this I will dive into one of my favorite Bible passages:

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:2-5)

In this passage Paul is not simply talking about his strategy for engaging the Corinthians, he is summing up a universal principle that is depicted in many instances throughout the Bible; the idea that God uses the weaknesses of men to display his power.

Paul was arguably one of the most brilliant minds in history and yet here he is clearly setting aside his rich arguments and simply holding fast to the core of the Gospel: Jesus Christ. At first glance this may not seem so remarkable, but it becomes much more remarkable when put in context.

To help put it in context I'll use myself as an example. I love to argue and to search for the truth. Such a drive has its uses, but it can be a weakness because when it comes to arguing I can be helplessly compulsive. I cannot begin to describe how many times I have been in an argument of great importance and then the opposing party raised an objection that was technically a tangent and yet I eagerly took the bait and followed that tangent down it's rabbit hole until the original issue became lost in the far distance and impossible from my limited mental resources to return to within any practical amount of time. It is easy for people who love to argue to center their focus on trivialities.

These Corinthians loved to argue and I can imagine what the discourses between them and Paul looked like on this occasion. The Corinthians would throw some clever question his way and he would say "I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about Jesus." And then they would throw him some highly contraversial fact and he would say "That may be true, but that does not have any immediate relevance to Jesus Christ." Of course that is simply my imagination since Paul does not describe the details of his discourses, but you may notice that I've closely modeled my imaginary conversation after the way Jesus dealt with the intellectual snares the Pharisees laid down for him, and I think it very likely that Paul would follow Jesus through using similar methods.

But that is just the beginning verse two. After that he adds "and him crucified.” Now, there are many verses in the Bible where Paul talks about rejoicing in the cross and boasting in the cross and similar positive references to the cross and crucifixion. This is not one of them. I cringe at the thought that at some place at some time this verse may have been read and several people shouted "Amen!" because I believe that in such an event they would have entirely missed Paul's point. This is not an "Amen" verse. Verse five is an "Amen" verse, but not verse two. This is Joshua and Caleb facing off against legions of men and giants who dwelt with an impenetrable fortresses. This is Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal while pouring water over his alter. This is Sarah laughing at the idea of having a son in her old age. This is Paul saying "We've entrusted our lives to Jesus Christ, and by the way, we tortured and killed him.” This is Paul making it very clear that by human standards his message is foolishness.

In the next verse Paul says that he was with them in weakness, fear, and much trembling. Unlike the previous verse, Paul does not explicitly say that he chose to be in such a state, though he also does not suggest that such a state was in any way sin, nor does he give any reason that his condition of fear and weakness should have been fought against.

Whether or not these were intentional attempts toward humility on Paul's part is not clear. I do know that when people throw intellectual arguments at me and I do not directly deal with those arguments I feel weak and fearful. It makes me look stupid or like I'm holding onto believe that deep down I know I can't rationalize or support. It's like walking away from a fistfight and being labeled a coward. So however Paul's speech and message were not in plausible words of wisdom, it is very possible that this course of action was at the least partially responsible for his state of fear and weakness.

But all of the vulnerability and discomfort conveyed in that verse pales when Paul reaches his punch line:

and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

The word used there for “demonstrate” is αποδειξει (apodeixei) which meant “pointing out”, “showing”, or demonstrating by argument.” Paul was laying down a solid argument, though not on any level the Corinthians were looking for. Paul did not simply speak about relying upon Jesus during this encounter; he lived it. Through his actions of humility his message of “dying to ourselves so that Christ could be magnified“ became tangible. Reliance upon Jesus should not simply be within our message, but within the delivery of our message as well.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1Cor. 1:27-29)

Now with all that said, I want to ask every Christian artist out there: Are you willing to make art that is weak and foolish? Are you willing to make art that is low and possibly even despised? Are you willing to scrutinize your art and strip away any flash and loftiness that could be distracting its audience from the Gospel? What does your art leave your audience with? Are they left praising God, your art, or you?

I am not saying that Christians should go out of their way to make products of poor quality. Despite Paul’s avoidance of sophisticated debating within these passages, the New Testament is full of his amazing intellectual arguments. Even his description of this encounter with the Corinthians is a link within a chain of very persuasive arguments that run throughout his letter. In fact, Paul explains how such a dichotomy is possible later on within that same letter:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Keep in mind that even though the above passage has a pattern of Paul becoming like someone to assist in his witness to them, his main point in this passage is that he is not doing wrong by being different things to different people for the sake of the gospel. His point does not say that the only way to strengthen your witness is to be like the people you are witnessing to. I say this because in the parts of 1 Corinthians I have been examining in this essay he writes about being simple to strengthen his witness to the intellectuals, which, based upon the general principle he is conveying, is as legitimate an option as being intellectual to intellectuals.

If you are convinced that pouring a large budget into a Christ centered work of art would genuinely enhance that product’s potential to point people to Jesus, then by all means pursue such a course. But do not assume that a large budget and meticulous technical precision will inherently improve a product’s spiritual effectiveness, because in many cases those things will only achieve the opposite end. If you want your art to be as God glorifying as possible, then you must be willing for your art, just as for yourself, to be all things to all men, even if that means lowering your output below human expectations.

A Heart for God

2007-10-16T21:48:00.000-07:00

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30)

I once thought that one of the primary purposes for art as a Christian is to synchronize our minds and our emotions, so that our emotions and desires would be aligned with what we know as Christians we are supposed to do. I think there still may be some truth to that idea, but the more I have studied the above passage and similar passages in the Bible, I believe God’s word has something much deeper to say about your minds and emotions.

What exactly does Jesus mean when he uses the words heart, soul, mind, and strength? First, we must look at the passage he was referring to in Deuteronomy:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deuteronomy 6:5)

Notice that Jesus added the word mind to the passage. That was not in the original Hebrew nor was it in the Septuagint that Jesus was quoting. This addition is an important fact that will be brought up in detail later in this essay.

From here I will first examine the Hebrew words used in this passage for heart, soul, and might, and then examine the Greek equivalents used in the Septuagint version.

The Hebrew word for heart is lebh. It refers to the inner man in contrast to what is outside and visible about a person. It is the seat of desire, inclination, and will; the seat of emotion; the seat of knowledge, wisdom, and memories; the moral conscience of the person.

The Hebrew word used there for soul is nepesh. This word is usually translated as soul, self, life, person, and heart. To best describe this word I will quote a passage from "Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament":

(Of nephesh) The real difficulty of the term is seen in the inability of almost all English translations to find a consistent equivalent or even a small group of high-frequency equivalents for the term. The KJV alone uses over 28 different English terms for this one Hebrew word. The problem with the English term "soul" is that no actual equivalent of the term or the idea behind it is represented in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew system of thought does not include the combination or opposition of the terms "body" and "soul," which are really Greek and Latin in origin. The Hebrew contrasts two other concepts which are not found in the Greek and Latin tradition: "the inner self" and "the outer appearance" or, as viewed in a different context, "what one is to oneself" as opposed to "what one appears to be to one's observers."

I relish that passage not only for the way it conveys a remarkable depth of meaning in regard to the term in question, but also in how it vividly illustrates some of the key issues we must understand if we are to accurately study the Bible. One of those issues is the fact that neither Hebrew nor Greek translate 1:1 into English. Unless you are verifying your interpretations with the original Greek and Hebrew texts, you are going to have (at best) a fuzzy idea of what the Bible says. Secondly it refers to how the Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, and our contemporary present all have very different cultures with very different conceptualizations of the world we live in. But hearing of this difference is one thing; experiencing it is quite another. Soon I hope to convey just how mind-stretching these differences in conceptualization can be.

One common thread throughout both Greek and Hebrew is that their terms for heart and soul are both based upon two of the body's most critical functions for life: pumping blood and breathing oxygen.

The Hebrew word used for might in that passage is m’od. It does not mean physical strength, (as I once thought), but a degree, specifically an exceedingly, highly, very great degree. It is used in this passage substantively, meaning that it is an adjective being used grammatically as like a noun. In other words, even though it is used along with a list of nouns, it’s role in this sentence is actually used more to emphasize the degree of the rest of the sentence, saying that you are to love the Lord to the extreme; with as much as you are possibly capable of.

Now on to the Greek! The greek word for heart that Jesus uses is καρδια (kardia). (I might add more to this part later but for the sake of brevity kardia is similar enough to the Hebrew idea of heart to continue without using the terms innacurrately.)

The greek word that Jesus uses for soul is ψυχη (psuche). (Same with psuche. ψυχη is a fascinating word with much importance to the gospel, but it is not immediately critical to the questions at hand.)

There is a lot of overlap between heart and soul in both the Hebrew and Greek, and a sometimes the differences between the two ideas are subtle and yet very important. However, the term of ‘heart’ has more emphasis on what we would consider the mental faculties, while the ‘soul’ has more emphasis on what we would call the ‘spiritual’ faculties. (That is a gross oversimplication.) For the purpose of this study, I am more concerned with the heart, though we should still love God with all of our souls as well.

The greek word used for ‘strength’/’might’ in the New Testament version is ιςχυς (ischus). Though this word frequently is used within a context of ‘degree’, it does not have the same connotation of ‘exceedingly’ that m’od has. Along with ‘strength’, an arguable translation for the word within this passage could be ‘ability’. “Love the Lord your God with all of your ability.” The Septuagint used the word δυναμις (dunamis) which generally means ‘power’, and within this context has the same general meaning as ιςχυς (ischus).

(As a side note, while Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27 all use a word for might, Matthew 22:37 only refers to the heart, soul, and mind.)

And now to the mind. The word used in the New Testament versions of this passage is διανοια (dianoia). This would refer to all of the functions we would attribute to the brain, including both thoughts and feelings. However, (and this is an important distinction) in the New Testament καρδια (kardia) is usually used in what English would consider a more emotional context, while διανοια (dianoia) is more frequently used in what would be translated as a rational context.

(As a another side note and to clear up some possible confusion in regard to much of this translating, it is generally considered that Jesus’ primary spoken language was Aramaic, so at first glance it would look like the authors of each Gospel translated Jesus's words from Aramaic to Greek. However, aside from the addition of ‘mind’ and changing δυναμις to ιςχυς, the New Testament renditions of this quote are identical to the Septuagint translation. Though most scholars believe that Aramaic was Jesus’ primary language, there is much evidence to support that he also knew at least some greek, and it is possible that he could have quoted the septuagint during these instances. If he did not quote it in Greek then it is possible that the authors of the Gospels referenced the Septuagint in their translation of his quotation.)

I do not know Jesus' motivation for adding διανοια (dianoia) to that quote. But I do know that in some ways that change made for a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew into the current flavor of Greek than the Septuagint did. The Greeks had a much more complex conceptualization of the inner man, and simply saying heart and soul in Greek does not suggest all of the faculties of the mind as much as it did in Hebrew.

But perhaps I am worrying to much about symantics. I want to be thorough, but at the same time I don't want to be putting people to sleep. (Though I think all of this is fascinating!) Out of all of the words in that passage I am most interested with 'heart', so now I will jump to the Enlish definition and see how far things have changed. Below is a direct quote from dictionary.com on it's definition of the heart. (There were other points to this quote that I did not include because they were off of the immediate topic, such as the use of 'heart' as a physical organ.)

[ Heart ]
3. the center of the total personality, esp. with reference to intuition, feeling, or emotion: In your heart you know I'm an honest man.
4. the center of emotion, esp. as contrasted to the head as the center of the intellect: His head told him not to fall in love, but his heart had the final say.
5. capacity for sympathy; feeling; affection: His heart moved him to help the needy.
6. spirit, courage, or enthusiasm: His heart sank when he walked into the room and saw their gloomy faces.

You can see here that there is no reference to rationality and many of the other inner functions contained within the words lebh or καρδια. When our English translations of the Bible use the word ‘heart’ they are referring to a more complete summation of the inner person then we use that word to mean.

So here is what I’ve been leading up to. At the beginning of this essay I opened up by saying how I once had thought that one of the primary purposes for art as a Christian was to synchronize our minds and our emotions, but that I now questioned that idea. The reason is that from everything I’ve seen in my studies, emotion does not exist in the Bible, at least not anything like our idea of that term.

This essay is already starting to grow a little cumbersome for my intended scope so at least for now I won’t go into all of the details behind the theory, but a distinct shift in mindset can be seen traced throughout Western history. (From what little I know of Eastern history such a shift was made much earlier.) The Hebrews had a very simple understanding of the mind, a simplicity that most people of today would look down on. The Greeks in their pursuit of philosophy started breaking down the functions of the brain and took some of the earliest steps toward psycology, but the writers of the New Testament chose language that uses only some of the Greeks intellectualizing and avoids a great deal of it. Philosphy literally means “to love (or be a lover) of wisdom.” In New Testament terms, this would be worldly wisdom. The apostles used wisdom only when it glorified God, and avoided any structures of thoughts that exalted man’s intellect.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:22-23)

I’ve seen how I myself and others around me frequently are in a state of mind where part of our brain wants to do one thing, but we don’t feel like doing it, and we either have a hard time doing the action in question or, base solely on our feelings, don’t do it at all. I am not talking about the New Testament’s descriptions of the Flesh and the Spirit, even though that issue sounds very similar, “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:19) That is very important to this topic and I am going to talk more about it shortly but the phenomon I am referring to is something that happens even within people who the Bible would say do not have the Holy Spirit.

Mostly what I am addressing in this essay is our mindset about how emotion and reason relate (or don’t relate as the case may be). So far I have been unable to find any Biblcal passages referring to such a conflict in emotion and reason as was mentioned earlier. There may be verses I have missed, but if so they are a minority. Especially in the Old Testament where most of the Bible’s narrative passages take place, people did what they wanted to do and if they struggled with the complex psychologies of our modern day, it is not awknowledged.

But what even is emotion? The more definitions I explore, the more vague the term becomes. Here is one of the more useful definitions of the word: (taken from the American Heritage Dictionary):

[ Emotion ]
1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.

However, even with this definition, the first half would equally describe the subconscious; a part of the mind very different from emotion. Out of all of the definitions of emotion, the idea of a mental state causing physiological changes is the most useful definition. However, that is not what most English speaking people are referring to when they describe emotion, and there probably is something more to it than the definition I gave, but I have yet to find a really solidified definition for it’s essence.

(I’m realizing that I’ll probably eventually need to rework this essay and rearrange things so that they flow better, because even though each of these paragraphs requires each other, they haven’t neccisarilly been laid out in the most logical flow. It’s sort of a catch-22 because much of this essay is working with unfinished ideas and shouldn’t be released until they are finished, but I have exhausted all of my immediate resources so that my only remaining hope is feedback, which I can’t have until I release this.)

I’m not saying that there isn’t a place for emotion in our understanding of our minds, but I am saying that this modern age has taken dissecting the human mind to the extreme, and I believe that course has led to negative side effects. We have compartmentalized our brains into so many separate parts that are all ready to fight with each other. (The Bible has much to say about being double-minded, and none of it is positive.) But simply looking at our minds that way might not be enough to support such a compartmentalization. That effect is assisted by the fact that we live in the most abstract era in history, with computers and cell phones and virtual this and synthetic-that. There is a place for abstractions, but we are falling into the same pitfall as the Greeks in the New Testament, thinking that there is somehow something more pure and perfect in the abstract when there is just as much room for sin in the abstract as in the concrete. There is something neccisary in the simple approach the Hebrews had in their view of themselves. They were not constantly psycho-analyzing their mental states (except for Solomon, and he concluded that that was vanity). All the Old Testament really focuses on is whether each individual was following God or not. Whether or not a person loved the Lord with all his being.

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
“I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve." (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

We live in the world of Spock, where people think that there is this thing called emotion which is some fluttery, utterly irrational experience that can be easily detached from the rest of the inner workings of a person. What if it isn’t that simple? How much of a gross oversimplication could we be making in cutting a large portion of the mind in half and giving some of it to one function and one to the other. People don’t stop to think about the fact that a fictional character like the Vulcan Spock is simply a hypothesis based upon many presumptions about how the entire makeup of a person fits together. We have seen so many fictional examples of the proposition that such a character could exist (usually as aliens or robots) that we have automatically concluded that the suppositions they are based upon are accurate, even though never in history has such a character existed. Of course some people appear more coldy calculated and stoic than others, and yet dwelling in the world of software engineering, I have found few programers who aren’t distinctly passionate about issues like “Object Oriented vs. Procedural Programming” or “Microsoft vs. Open Source” and will debate them till blood fills the streets. (I myself am a Microsoft man, and will fight all oncomers.)

What I am trying to say with all of that is not simply that we are to love the Lord with all of our hearts and minds, but that due to our modern worldviews, the task of doing both is much harder. Not only is the world against us loving the Lord, it is pulling us away from doing things with both our hearts and minds. The devil would like both our minds and our hearts, but if he has to he’ll just take one or the other.

From now on throughout these essays I am going to try to use the term heart instead of emotion, which feels a little strange to me, (haha, feels), but when given the choice I’d rather use a term that the Bible talks a great deal about instead of one that it makes no direct reference to.

I didn’t say nearly all that I wanted to say in this essay but I’m wanting these essays to be at least somewhere close to bitesize so I’ll wrap things up; but before I do, I’d like to say a few more things about the flesh and the spirit. The New Testament talks a great deal about the inner struggle between these two forces, and Paul’s description of that struggle do look a lot like the struggle I described earlier between what we know we should do and what we feel like doing. So now we have one symptom and two different scenarios that could be causing that symptom. One scenario is where (based on the New Testament terms) our mind is in roughly the right place, but our heart is not. The other scenario is where we are torn between the sinful flesh or the Spirit of God.

In my next essay I will explore how these two scenarios relate to the symptom, and whether they can be applied to art. (Which I think they can.)

Artist Typing

2007-10-16T21:47:00.000-07:00

An artist can be defined by two spectrums:

Romantic vs. Artisan

Developer vs. Performer

Every artist falls somewhere between each of those two spectrums. As an example, you could have a Romantic Developer or an Artisan that is somewhere between a Developer and a Performer (a person who does some of each).

The first spectrum is defined by the artist's motivation for working with art. Artisans work with art as either a means of income or an enjoyable passtime. Generally an artisan becomes a professional artist largely due to circumstance. They may have equally enjoyed being a doctor or a mechanic but for whatever reasons art seemed the most practical choice. If an artisan chooses to use art as more of a passtime then that will be because for them art is refreshing and fun.

Romantics work with art because, from their point of view, they were made to do it. They will pursue their art regardless of whether or not it is practical. Though Romantics may at times enjoy the art they work with, they do not choose their art because it is fun but because they feel compelled to do it.

In comparing the two types directly, Romantics are generally much more obsessive about their craft than Artisans. Artisans tend to be more laid-back in their artistic approach than Romantics but they can still be very perfectionistic. Romantics generally identify more closely with their art than Artisans. They take it more personally. Often times Romantics have more natural talent than Artisans, but since I am predominantly basing these distinctions on inclination alone it would be possible to have a Romantic with absolutely no capability in the field they are driven toward.

The second spectrum is defined by how the artists works with art. Developers design, pioneer, and construct art. Performers re-create art. Though they may have some creative freedom in how they re-create that art, they are not executing the degree of construction and design that Developers utilize.

Developers create art. Performers become art.

Design is the key distinction between the two types. Performers are always implementing a design. A Developer may or may not implement a design, but only Developers create a design.

These artist types are wide open for adjustment. I myself am not sure that they are the best means of categorizing artists. In particular, one of my biggest concerns is that the second spectrum of Developer vs. Performer should instead be purely defined by Designer vs. Implementer. Developer vs. Performer is closer to what your average artist would relate to but if it is less accurate than what is actually taking place then it may cause inconsistencies and confusion. But it may work since these artist types are meant to be handy guidelines at best.

For the record, I am a Romantic Developer. (With that in mind you can keep an eye out for any signs of bias in my essays or even within this specific system of artist categorizing.)

Audiences

2007-10-16T21:45:00.000-07:00

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31)

The ultimate goal of art, as with the human life, is to glorify God. There are three primary ways that art can be used to accomplish this, each action separated by its target audience:

Express
Edify
Evangelize

Expression

My lips will shout for joy, when I sing praises to you; my soul also, which you have redeemed. (Psalm 71:32)

The first action, Expression, is between the artist and God. That is when God is the audience, and the artist is focusing on Him. The majority of the Book of Psalms falls under this category. This is the primary mode and essence of praise and worship.

Edification

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16)

For the second action, Edification, the target audience is the church, which includes the artist. In this case, the primary purpose of the art is to bolster the audience’s love for God, understanding of God, and their desire to fulfill his commandments with all of their being.

Evangelism

And thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation, but as it is written, "Those who have never been told of him will see, and those who have never heard will understand." (Romans 15:20-21)

With Evangelism the target audience is the people in the world who are living without Christ. (Using art for evangelism is arguably the trickiest of these three categories to successfully implement.)

Each of these categories has a unique danger that Christians need to be aware of:

Expression: Though not frequently, I've seen some people who focus so much on their individual relationship with God and yet lose sight of the people around them.The reality is that much of our relationship with God takes place through our loving others.“’This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.’” (John 15:12).“No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12)

Edification: The danger with the second category is to look to art as some kind of drug that we can rely upon to get us through the day. Art can be a useful support to prayer, Bible study, and Christian fellowship, but it cannot replace them, and even the most God inspired work of art can become a distraction if we begin to think we depend upon it.

Evangelism: Art can be a very powerful tool for evangelism, but that course of action has many dangers.Unlike creating art focused on edification, evangelical art attempts to engage people who have not submitted to Jesus as the Lord of their life.This creates an incentive to compromise the potency of the message so that non-Christians will more readily lend their attention.That is a big issue that I'm not going to tackle right now, but regardless whether or not such a compromise is right or wrong, it can lead to a product becoming impotent or even destructive.One concern for evangelical artists is that they don't become wrapped up in the world they're trying to minister to.This is especially difficult when Christian artists are given a fair amount of success and are put in the limelight.That is an incredibly challenging test of a Christian's devotion to the Lord.

A work of Christian design generally contains some composition of all three of these categories, so I am not suggesting that these categories are mutually exclusive. These categories are not set in stone and are meant simply to be a guideline to assist you in identifying which mode a work is predominately using to glorify God. This is profitable because there are many things you can do to glorify God and yet you can’t equally do them all at once. We have a finite amount of resources to glorify God with, and if we understand the economics surrounding those resources we will more effectively maximize their use.

Sincerely,
Chris Johnson

Art Defined

2007-10-16T21:41:00.000-07:00

Art is any man-made creation designed to influence the subconscious of those who perceive it.

I say “influence the subconscious” because art bypasses the foreconscious and makes direct changes to the state of the audience's subconscious. Instead of the word “influence”, I would prefer to use “manipulate”, which is a more accurate word, but people can't seem to get past its malevolent connotation so I'm avoiding that term. Most any experienced artist should be able to relate to gauging their intended audience and deciding which buttons to press. If I play a minor chord people will feel sad or serious. If I paint a picture that is black and white and the only splash of color is a green tree in the background, all eyes will be drawn to that tree. If I am writing a story and I have many terrible things happen and then something joyful happens, that joyful event will mean more than if the entire story had been pleasant. With all of these artistic decisions I am anticipating what will happen to the audience when they are exposed to these different combinations of elements.

I say “designed" because for art to have meaning it must have an intelligent purpose. For art to have value it must have a intended goal that it can accomplish. Art is not a random action with the goal of allowing the audience to get whatever they want from it. That is vanity. If haphazardly throwing paint onto an easel is creating art, then so is taking a bath or a dead cockroach or talking about paying the bills. Everything that in any way influences a person's subconscious would fall into the category of art and its definition would lose all distinction.

I say “man-made” to further make a useful definition of art by distinguishing between God's creation and our creation. God created everything, and everything he has created has the potential, when perceived, to influence a person's subconscious. Also, since God is both omniscient and omnipotent, he has the ability to gauge and control how everything influences each person's subconscious. Thus, everything God created potentially can meet the first two criteria I outlined for defining art, so if a distinction is not made between what we make and what God has made then once again everything is art, all distinction is lost and art as a term loses most of it's usefulness.

It's important to clarify that I am not taking God out of my definition of art. God created us, and one of the functions we are designed to do is to create art. The art we create can be seen as a subset of God's creation.

The dynamics I've outlined above are not unique to art, for they are the same with any mode of communication. Art is a form of communication, and communication is a form of mind control. Not to say that any form of communication can control any part of the mind, but certain communications generate certain effects within the targeted audience of that communication. It is a universal rule for any system: in order to receive and process any communication some part of your mind must be altered to reflect the impact of that communication.

For example, if a person introduced himself to me and said that his name was Bob, several parts of my mind would change in response to that communication. Firstly, in some part of my mind the word “Bob” would be attached to whatever other attributes I had perceived about this man and neatly cataloged away within some “Bob” file. Secondly, an entry for that specific event of Bob introducing himself would be registered in my memory banks. Thirdly, the decision-making parts of my mind would factor that communication into deciding what course of action to take in response to receiving it, so that as an example, after receiving that communication from Bob my mind would conclude that there would be no reason to ask for that person's name. Fourthly, my intuition would make a wide sweep of my knowledge and cross-reference the word Bob with any other instances of the word Bob that I may have encountered and further store its findings somewhere for other parts of my mind to potentially utilize. Those are all that I can think of off of the top of my head, although there are probably a myriad of other procedures that would likely take place within any mind during that circumstance, but perhaps those few examples will give some idea of the magnitude of influence that communication commands.

Most people I tell these things to immediately disagree with me though no one has yet given me any actual arguments against these ideas. I think the reality is that most people including myself do not travel through life with the understanding of just how vulnerable our minds really are to the world around us. Though our minds can do a great deal of filtering, the only way you can completely filter out a communication is to not expose yourself to that communication in any form.

Finally, for art to achieve the purpose of it’s design, it must be perceived. Not to say that an object does not become art until it is perceived, but that an object is not art until it is designed to be perceived. Intent is the crucial ingredient here.

I debated with myself a great deal as to whether or not to directly include a reference to audiences in my definition of art because the intended audience is such a crucial component of art, but I decided that I just wanted this to be an introduction and won't make things too complicated for now, so I’ll talk more about audiences later. I don't want to spend too much time at once talking about the technicalities without getting back to the real meat of how God fits into all of this.

Humility

2007-10-15T22:33:00.000-07:00

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1Cor. 1:27-29)

There is one attribute which defines the value of an artist more than any other attribute, and that is humility. If you wish to be an artist of any consequence then what you need is humility, and you will never in this life acquire too much of it.

But the importance of humility does not fully resonate until it's essence is explored, because mankind has such a skewed notion of the term. To begin with, I'll clarify what humility is not. Humility has nothing to do with a human seeing himself as lesser than another human. This is the chief error. Saying that you are not very skilled at such and such a task does not make you humble. Secondly, humility has little or nothing to do with our sinful state. Then again, maybe all of that is a form of humility, but only the humanistic definition of humility. When I am referring to humility, I am talking about Biblical humility, which is explained exquisitely in the passage below:

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Phil 2: 3-4)

Now you are probably thinking "What is he talking about? He just presented a verse that contradicts with everything he’s saying!" Not so. I am not saying that you should not consider others as more significant than yourself. In fact, such a course of action is foundational in most everything I'm going to be talking about. The following passage helps explain how humility is about considering others as more significant than yourself and yet not about belittling yourself in comparison to others:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:5-11)

Now here's the question: If humility has anything to do with seeing ourselves as lesser than others, or feeling lowly because of our sinfulness, how could Jesus be humble? He is God! He lived a sinless life, and at the sound of his name all of creation will bow down and acknowledge his lordship! This world's definition of humility is based upon shortcomings, and that definition is shot down by the existence of a man who was both perfect and humble.

Along those same lines, when we reach heaven our sinful state will fall away, and we will be better people than we ever were. Will that give us less reason for humility? By no means! Increased sanctification does not mean less humility, but more! But if the world's definition is not true humility, then what is?

I once watched a movie called "The Lawnmower Man" (A movie I distinctly do not recommend due to it's content and humanistic values.) It was a movie about a simple man who, through a series of high-tech tests he was put through, acquired a genius mind and vast, superhuman powers. Within that movie there were many references to him being like a god, and at one point he calls himself a "Cyber-Christ". As I was thinking about that story, and comparing this character to the true, living God, it struck me how the writers of that story had no concept of what being Godlike really is. They're idea of Godlike is so, well, human. God is infinite. His power is infinite. We can't even comprehend that. If a person “evolved” to the point where he was destroying and forming galaxies at a mere whim, compared to God he would still be no more significant than an ant. No one can say "My abilities are closer to infinite than yours are." because when you are talking about whether or not the power of an entity is finite or infinite, it is a Boolean question; either you are or you aren't. There is no in-between. There are no varying degrees. Compared to God, the playing field of the finite is leveled. From that point on, the only distinction between anything finite is whether it is aligned for or against it's infinitely powerful Creator.

Humility is not seeing yourself in relation to men or anything like that, it is seeing yourself in relation to God. It is the conscious act of seeing the omnipotence and goodness of God and submitting your life to Him. It is seeing, as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 1, (which I will be discussing in great detail) that the only significance a human can ever pursue is to be a servant of God and a channel of his goodness and power.

"He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

Now back to the above-mentioned passage in Philippians. Biblical humility is not the act of counting others as more significant than yourself. Counting others more significant than yourself is the effect of Biblical humility. This distinction is crucial because it is possible for people, to one degree or another, to view others as more significant than themselves without the existence of God in any way factoring into their motivations.

You may be wondering why I have not referred much to art so far. Yet the fact of the matter is that I have been indirectly discussing art along every step of this essay, and will be discussing more explicitly how that has been the case. To some degree I am ashamed by the way in which I have thrown before you Bible passages of such great depth and yet I have hardly touched them, but my conscience is put at ease by the fact that I will assuredly expound in greater detail upon these and other verses in the future. With this essay I am simply getting the ball rolling.

Introduction

2007-10-15T22:19:00.000-07:00

As introduction, my name is Chris Johnson. I am a Christian, a writer, graphic designer, computer programmer, composer, musician, 3D animator, editor, audio engineer, web designer, videographer, game designer, and the founder of Silent Orb. I am creating this blog to post my studies on the Bible and art in essay format. In these essays I will be addressing a Christian audience, although I am glad for anyone to read them and participate, regardless of their worldview.

These essays were originally posted at www.silentorb.com/translucence but I am experimenting with using a more conventional blog so that it could be easier for others to post comments.