Tuesday, May 24, 2016


Yesterday I was reading Zizek (2002) and I recalled that I experienced what he describes as some essence of the shift from Judaism to Christianity.
"Perhaps the true achievement of Christianity is to elevate a loving (imperfect) Being to the place of God, this is, the place of ultimate perfection" (p. 61).

Once, when I had an authentic spiritual experience (psilocybin-induced of course), this was precisely the realization that was so powerful. The thought that "God needs to be loved to" was so immense it overwhelmed me. I saw creation as beautiful, and yet imperfect. But love, love is real. Creation existed for the sake of love. And Jesus knew love, and knew God.

My vision was very feminine in nature, I remember I could see several women sitting with Jesus. Judiasm deals with the masculine, but "Love, on the other hand, is 'feminine': it involves the paradoxes of the non-All" (Zizek, 2002, p. 61). 

There was a time when I believed in nothing more than the reality of love and God. When I began to study the bible however, I experienced confusion, and ultimately a loss of the original revelation.

Looking through the lens of Zizek's atheistic perspective, I conjecture that perhaps there is a need for the imperfect being to be at the place of ultimate perfection. Perhaps some sort of social movement could be built around it.

Zizek, S. (2002). The real of sexual difference. In Reading seminar XX: Lacan’s major work on love, knowledge, and feminine sexuality (pp. 57-77).

Friday, July 12, 2013

Dream 9/14/05

In my dream Carissa told me she had class at 10:20 the next morning.  Then I said, "bummer".  Then I remembered I had class at 10:20 too.  Then I woke up, looked at the clock, and it was 10:20.  So I went to class.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Lattices and Eminem

You know the musician?  The message is... drumroll.  Using technology is okay for a christian.  Even though... your electrical power may damage the enviornment or even destroy our world... it's destined to happen anyways.  Use the means to spread the gospel.  (In a good way of course. Does that mean Auto-tune Jesus Way? Here is my soundcloud page: https://soundcloud.com/cr0ss-3)

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Math Class

I believe people should learn critical thinking in a math class.  The best way to do this is with proofs.  Students need to understand why the math works.  Is this easy?  No.  Is that an excuse?  No.  Not even for the teachers.

Here is a quote from the 2012 NY Times article "Is Algebra Necessary?" by Andrew Hacker, "A TYPICAL American school day finds some six million high school students and two million college freshmen struggling with algebra. In both high school and college, all too many students are expected to fail".  Hacker's idea is to scrap the study of Algebra altogether (to hack it). 

Hacker brings up several good points in his article that question the role mathematics should play in education.  I believe it is time for Math Educators to examine what the purpose of teaching mathematics is.

I argue that mathematics should be used to teach students critical reasoning.  A mathematician does not spend their day...

Should We Be Blogging About Whether We Should Be Talking About Piers Morgan Bringing Alex Jones on Television

The Sandy Hook tragedy has led to much bickering, arguing, and a general opportunity for Americans to express their opinions.  But a person has to ask themselves if the opinions they are expressing are "good-natured".

Every time a disaster falls, Americans feel the urgent need to enact new legislation.  After 9/11 we were rushed into the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Iraq War.  Now after the Sandy Hook tragedy many states are passing gun control legislation (see link Gun Control Bills Flood Statehouses.., ) and there has been talk of a national ban on "military-style assault rifles".  Are we a people prone to panic?  Why is it that it takes a national tragedy to produce such an urgent need to enact change?  When is the last time that something good happened that put a fire into the people?

Certainly there are special interests capitalizing on the events of the Sandy Hook tragedy as a means to enact push forward gun control legislation.  It is difficult to deny that this also happened after 9/11.  Of course there is not a lot of mention of the purpose of the 2nd amendment- the citizenry has a right to protect itself against an oppressive government.   For this reason it is contrary to the notions of liberty  to talk of banning "military-style assault rifles" for all but the military.  Many of you who are reading recognize this truth.

I grew up in a small rural community, where there was constant talk of the government "taking away our guns".  I recognize their sentiment and agree that the government should not take them away.  That is not to say that we should have guns or use them, or more importantly, we need not be passionate about guns.  "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also".

It does not appear that the federal government will be a leader in world peace.  They are not going to give up using their weapons.  The citizens of this country need to do that.

We should not ban assault weapons, we should just not use them.  Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person".

Great things can happen.  Believe in those things. 

Great things can happen.  Believe in those things. If you believe you have something to say that expresses the will of God, then you need to express it.  This is not easy.  In finding a way to articulate a message in a way that people can understand and receive it can be a painful process.  It can take hard, hard work.  But the more you work, the easier it gets.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

GRE Essay Practice

Prompt: Write about your opinion pertaining to this statement. Nations need to require all their citizens to study the same national curriculum until college. A national curriculum would not be good for a nation., although it is not unreasonable to require some minimal educational requirements. By imposing a standard national curriculum educators would have to choose which pieces of knowledge to teach and which to exclude. A large amount of knowledge would be neglected by the majority of the nation. A national curriculum may cause dull uniformity or maybe even something worse. The country of America for instance has been a melting pot of people and ideas. To make every student in the entire country learn the same things would be to lessen the diversity of ideas. If evil people came to rule a certain nation, and imposed a national curriculum, the education could be controlled by the state; and the citizens may be indoctrinated with nationalist propaganda. Such a nation may slide into despotism or war as in Nazi Germany. The no-child left behind act introduced tough requirements on schools in relation to academic performance. The act has been the cause of grief for many educators. Certainly the students also suffer as the necessary curriculum is taught while leaving a student devoid of a love for learning. Each and every student is unique and has their own talents. To impose the same national curriculum on every student may prohibit some students from taking the time to pursue the subjects that excite their minds. Not every student is good at math, but some are. Instead of requiring every student to learn the same mathematical material we should encourage some to pursue it much more than others, while at the same time requiring that all students have a basic knowledge of mathematics. We should not expect all students to have a mastery of mathematical proof, but at least those who get A's in mathematics should have it. There needs to be some flexibility in the school curriculum so that students can pursue what they are good at, and the nation's creativity can flourish. By imposing a national curriculum the teacher's may not be able to do their best. Some teachers may have a love for a particular topic in their discipline. Say an English teacher has a passion for the writings of Jules Verne. If given the opportunity they may be able to make English exciting and fun while working with some of their favorite books. If the national curriculum did not include Jules Verne in the list of acceptable books, then the teacher would have to teach material they were less excited about; and consequently the students would be less excited as well. A national curriculum would infringe on the rights of parents who send their children to private schools and parents who home school. Certainly a course on the Koran would not be a part of the national curriculum of the United States, but it may be important for the parents of those who wish to send their children to a private school dedicated to religious tolerance. Certainly there are some things that a nation could require of all of its students. It is certainly beneficial for all students to learn basic arithmetic. There may of course be some things that all the students of a nation should be reasonably expected to understand: a nation's political structure for instance. It would not be unreasonable to have a set of minimum standards for all students. It is not a good idea for a nation to require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. While it may be beneficial to require a minimum set of standards that all students must learn, it is not acceptable for the whole curriculum to be the same for every student. This would cause dull uniformity, a possible infringement of freedom, and loss of excitement and creativity for many teachers and students.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Arisotelian School

In a previous post I wrote about Aristotle's view of friendship. Here is a quote "The model of the best friendship that Aristotle outlines in the Nichomachean Ethics is based upon virtue. Aristotle writes, “when everyone strains to achieve what is fine and concentrates on the finest actions, everything that is right will be done for the common good, and each person individually will receive the greatest of goods, since that is the character of virtue”. This is Aristotle’s ultimate goal. If every person strove toward what is virtuous then eventually everything would be done for the common good, and nothing would be done selfishly. Even though we may never reach Aristotle’s ideal, individuals can still improve their lives, friendships, and the lives of others around them by aspiring to live virtuously." Why not found a school based on this idea? It would not be a religious school, but certainly religious people would be welcome. But also muslims, buddhists, even atheists would be welcome as long as they (or their parents) were committed to achieving good. The school could offer classes in philosophy or religion. I think it could be good.