Support This Blog On Patreon!

Support this Blog!

All I ask is a $1 a month. (But more is great too.) If you find this content to be beneficial, interesting or just a fascinating peek into true insanity please donate.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

The 100th Post

If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:



Or download the MP3



Many, many years ago, someone described a framework for categorizing knowledge about an individual. As with so many of these things there are two axis and four quadrants. The X axis is what the individual knows about themselves, with one column for things that are known and one column for things which are not known. The Y axis deals with what other people know about us and, similarly, there’s one row for the known and one for the unknown.

A little googling revealed that this framework is called the Johari Window. And each of the quadrants apparently has a label:
  • The Known Self: Things both the individual and others know about themselves. A preference for sarcasm for example...
  • The Hidden Self: Things the individual knows about themselves which other people don’t know. Deep dark secrets are obviously in this category.
  • The Blind Self: Things others know about the individual which the individual is unaware of. Spinach in the teeth is the classic example. But I assume that lots of self-sabotaging behavior also falls into this category.
  • The Unknown Self: Things that neither the individual or others are aware of. I once watched a whole movie which was essentially all about this. It was called Force Majeure and it involved the fallout after a father runs away from an avalanche, abandoning his wife and children. (They ended up being fine.) His cowardice had previously been part of the unknown self, and when it was revealed it surprised both the individual and his family.

As I mentioned I heard about this framework quite a while ago, but I hadn’t thought about it in many years. But as I was thinking about my topic, I was reminded of it. And what is that topic you might ask?

Well, this is the 100th post and it will be published within a few days of the two year anniversary of my first post. And thus it seems like this would be a good time to step back somewhat and take a look at where I’ve been and where I’m going. Do something of a meta-post, so to speak. My suspicion is that it will mostly end up being unreadable navel gazing (more so!) but I think I can manage, at a minimum, to move some things out of the “hidden self” category into the “known self” category. Even better would be if this post ended up moving something out of the “blind self” category. My ideal would be if someone came into the comments section and said, “Actually you’re fantastic at X! You should do more of that!” (On the other hand someone telling me I’m terrible at everything and should just give up, would also count, though it might be less useful.)

Okay now that we’re done with the psychobabble, I know that many of you are already well aware that a meta-post is a post about posting. But I actually want to go a little bit deeper. At the most basic level, the first question I have to grapple with is what does someone do who has some discretionary time on their hands? What’s the best use of that time? (For the curious the time directly involved in creating both the blog and podcast every week averages out to around 9 hours.)

Obviously I could use this time to read more, though I already read quite a bit. Another option would be to use it to play more video games. Unlike reading, this is something I actually don’t do that much of, though lately I have been thoroughly enjoying Slay the Spire. Still another option would be to watch more TV. Certainly I’m below average in my TV viewing. The list of really good TV that I haven’t watched is extensive. (I have not seen Breaking Bad, Veronica Mars, The Wire or The Sopranos.) To a greater or lesser degree, all three of these options provide very little value, particularly for people other than myself.

Reading, playing video games or watching TV aren’t my only options (though sometimes it appears that way when I look at how other people spend their discretionary time) there are, of course, more impactful options. Things like exercise, spending more time with my family, volunteering at a worthwhile charity, or doing genealogy (something which is obviously big for Mormons). If I was greedy (or maybe just prudent) I could use the time to work another job (it wouldn’t be hard to find something that paid better than blogging). Or, I could spend all of that time expanding my current business, or seeking investment opportunities.

I could go on and on but I assume that you get the idea. I have lots of options for how to spend the nine hours of discretionary time I currently spend on maintaining a weekly blog. Accordingly out of all the things I could be doing with this discretionary time, why did I decide that I should start a blog? (Eventually deciding to record that blog and release it every week as a podcast.) What was it that made me decide that this would be the best use of that time and if, in the course of this post I decide to re-examine that decision am I going to end up making the same decision again?

Before we get too far we need to establish some criteria for making a decision. Perhaps I really do want to make the best use of my time, but best according to what standard? Of course there’s the utilitarian standard, what could I do with my time that would bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number? If this is the standard I’m going for then I evidently possess that special sort of hubris which leads one to think that the greatest total benefit they could bring to the world is to let everyone know what they think, and by extension how utterly wrong they are if they don’t think the same way. We should not discount the possibility that I had exactly this much hubris, but for the moment let’s set that aside.

Instead of a utilitarian standard I could be going for a hedonistic standard. Perhaps I felt that writing a blog is what would bring me the most pleasure. There have been a couple of posts recently where I criticized people for prioritizing hedonism, so if the value system I ultimately used to decide to start a blog consisted of what made me feel good there would be a certain amount of irony there. But if it was just one factor among many, then perhaps I could be forgiven.

In what might be viewed as something halfway between the first two standards. I could be doing it because I felt an internal compulsion to do it. Many writers talk about being driven to write without necessarily getting much enjoyment out of it. Thus I may feel compelled to write but without the hubris of thinking that the world would be hugely benefited by listening to what I have to say. And I may experience relief from giving into my compulsion to write, but this relief isn’t necessarily me hedonistically seeking out the greatest amount of pleasure. This standard being that I started a blog because, ultimately, it was easier than not starting a blog. And I should mention that the pressure to start something is of an entirely different flavor than the pressure to continue something.

Possibly rather than experiencing internal compulsion, the impetus was actually external. Maybe I was feeling pressure from something or someone. And my standard was, “I just need to get these people to stop bugging me!”

I don’t want to turn this into a list of 30 reasons why I write, there are enough of those out there, And as you may have guessed I write for all of the reasons I just listed, or at least I started writing for all of the reasons just listed, but as I alluded to, the reasons someone might have for starting something may be completely different than the reasons someone might have for continuing something. Also out of the four reasons I listed, I’m the only person who can judge the success of three of them (well maybe two and a half of them). And in the spirit of unproductive navel gazing this post was always going to descend to, it’s appropriate to briefly examine whether, in my own judgement, those reasons still apply. Whether I have met any of these standards.

As far as the first standard that’s the one thing I can’t judge, so we’ll return to it once the navel gazing is over.

The second standard for starting a blog was enjoyment. Do I still enjoy it? I’d have to say that I do. In fact, I think in the long run it might actually be the most enjoyable way I can spend my discretionary time. (There are things with more short term enjoyment, but they make me feel guilty over the long run.)

The third reason was that I felt compelled to do it. Here is where there’s the biggest difference between a reason for starting and a reason for continuing. I do not feel as compelled to continue as I felt to start. Doing 100 posts has definitely lessened the compulsion. That said it’s not entirely gone, and in fact I would say that it’s stronger than I would have thought at this point. In the past I’ve had a real problem getting bored with things, and while that has happened, it’s happened to a much lesser extent then I would have thought.

The fourth standard/reason was the external one. In my case it kind of felt like a commandment. There has been a fairly consistent theme in many of the recent statements by LDS leaders (specifically General Conference talks) that Mormons need to be more active in announcing and espousing their beliefs, particularly on social media. These statements always struck me with quite a bit of force. (Though I think I may have come up with one of the least straightforward ways of following that counsel.) This is the one where, technically, I can only judge the success of my half, do I feel like I followed the counsel of the brethren? To which I would answer mostly. The other half would be whether the brethren (or just other Mormons in general) feel that I’ve followed it. That I’m less sure about.

Well then, what about the first standard? As I already said, if my standard for writing a blog is that I have decided that it’s the way in which I can be the most help to the world, then there’s a significant amount of hubris involved in that. This is somewhat mitigated by my other reasons, but not something I can ignore, so do I feel that this is really the most impactful thing I can do with my time? Is this really my area of greatest contribution to humanity?

To which I guess I’d answer, “Maybe?”

I do feel that I have something novel to say: I do think there’s some weird intersection of religion, antifragility, rationalism and futurism where there’s an enormous amount of untapped wisdom. Which is not to say I’m any good at imparting it, or even that I’m necessarily correct about its existence. And those are the two issues in a nutshell, how do I know whether I have anything worthwhile to say? To say nothing of whether spending my time in this fashion represents my area of greatest leverage? And if it is how do I get better at it? What’s the best way to spread this wisdom? (If, as I said, that’s what it is.)

I decided right at the beginning to do a weekly blog, and I wouldn’t claim that I gave these two questions much thought when I did. Fortunately, it turns out that an ongoing weekly blog is not a horrible way to go about answering those questions. If I don’t have anything worthwhile to say. If, as the expression goes, I’m “full of it.” Then putting my crap out there is the best way to have someone come along and smell it and tell me it stinks (okay this is not my greatest metaphor, I admit). As to the other question, at a minimum, I assume the more I write the better I’ll get at it.

Of course what I’m describing is basically just practice, practice in public, but if there’s one thing that’s come out from all recently in self-help literature, it’s that there are different kinds of practice, and that to get better you really need deliberate practice, and if there’s any point to this post other than naval gazing, it would probably be something along the lines of deciding that I need to be more deliberate in what I do.

What then, does deliberate practice look like when you’re talking about blogging? When I Google the term I’m informed that:

Deliberate practice refers to a special type of practice that is purposeful and systematic. While regular practice might include mindless repetitions, deliberate practice requires focused attention and is conducted with the specific goal of improving performance.
Which I must say, seems to strike pretty close to home, and not in a good way. It is certainly possible that a weekly blog is more in the “mindless repetition” category than the “purposeful and systematic” category.

It’s not like I haven’t thought about doing something different. Many of the blogs I admire the most, post when they feel like it, and only post when they have something really worthwhile to say. It’s not hard to imagine that there have been a few times (many times?) when I would have posted something better if I had posted it when it was ready rather than posting it because it was Saturday.

That said, I’m honestly worried that if I allowed myself the freedom to post when I feel like it, that I won’t feel like it very often. Also I have this Idea that perhaps someday, some publication which works on the principle of having a given writer post on a given day every week, will express interest in my stuff, and the thing that will interest them the most is that I have a steady track record of posting every week. (Perhaps rather than imagining this as some far off possibility I should start approaching these people now, particularly now that I have 100 articles under my belt.)

Also there’s this whole school of thought which says it’s better to produce day in and day out (or at least week in and week out in my case.) Then to wait for inspiration to strike. So perhaps I’m not being as mindless as it seems…

Of course whether I could be more deliberate in my writing “practice” that’s almost certainly not the place where there’s the largest room for improvement, particularly if we’re talking about “getting it out there”. The area with the most room for improvement is certainly marketing, for lack of a better term, and I’m actually pretty awful at it. Accordingly if there’s any place where I’m open to suggestions this is it.

Part of the problem surely lies in the enormous number of options for drawing attention to something, and I’m sure there’s a whole blog post to be written about how attention is now the major currency in the world (at least the first world.) I’m not sure if there’s much point in reviewing those options, but maybe doing so will spark something (either for me or for my readers.)

One thing I’ve meant to do for quite a while is create a Facebook page for the blog and cross post everything there, with perhaps some pithy observations thrown in. The primary problem there is that I kind of hate Facebook. And I’m trapped in something of a purgatory where it’s necessary for some things and yet at least once a week I think I should delete my account and never return. A possible middle option would be to go on Facebook and then spend the bulk of my time talking about how awful it is. But I can’t decide if this is edgy or a transparent and overused ploy by people who think they’re edgy .

I could say something similar about Twitter. Though I guess if I had to rank them I would rank Twitter as slightly less awful than Facebook. Or perhaps awful isn’t the right word, maybe Twitter is slightly more useful. More the sort of thing I should be doing as someone with a blog. But of course regardless of how I decide to use them both seem to require quite a bit more time and attention than I really want to spend on them. Or rather they seem exactly like the kind of constant interruption that anyone with anything to say about productivity warns you about.

The concept of time has brought us full circle. If I have nine hours a week to spend writing, why can’t I spend seven hours writing and two hours on social media, or whatever the ideal balance would be? Well first based on what I’ve seen of some people’s social media habits, it might take all nine hours and then some, but also certain things are easy to do and certain things are hard. There’s a post on SlateStarCodex that talks about how heroin addicts can find $200+ a week to support their addiction, but can’t find $100 to pay for treatment if they’re off heroin. He compares that to finding time to write, if you want something bad enough you find the time (or the money). And while I don’t think I have nearly the “addictive drive” that Scott Alexander does, I assume that something similar is going on here. Finding nine hours to write is comparatively easy, finding any time to promote that writing on social media is impossible. Which is not to say that I’m going to ignore the problem, just it’s obviously not something that comes naturally.

Okay, maybe I can’t summon the motivation to play the social media game, but I do have nine hours a week of writing, maybe I could use that more effectively, or differently? Maybe I could write shorter posts more often, with really long posts once a month? Or maybe I could shift some of my writing from blog posts to books? Or maybe my thematic focus could be tighter?

Changing things up is interesting to think about, but honestly, I’m probably not going to do any of those things, at least not soon. In fact my guess is that you won’t notice much difference between the posts which preceded this one and the posts following it. That said, to return to the topic of deliberate practice, I should be more deliberate, I should experiment more. Be more adventurous. Try some new things, even if they’ll probably fail. And hopefully you will see some of that going forward. To begin with while not a huge thing (baby steps!) I think it is time to move this blog to wordpress and a custom domain. I’m hoping to do that within the next 30 days. It’s not much, but perhaps it will shake some things up.

Finally to return to Johari’s Window. If you have anything to contribute to this discussion, any suggestions, criticisms, ideas, things I appear to be overlooking, etc. Please don’t hesitate to drop me an email or leave a comment.

For those of you reading this whether it’s your first post (which would be weird) or if you’ve actually, and inexplicably read all 100, thanks. I still have much more to stay, and the world continues to provide things to comment on even if I didn’t so hopefully we’ll both still be around for post 200 and maybe post 500 and maybe even post 1000.




One wonders if I’m going to run out of clever ways of asking for donations before I get to post 200, to say nothing of post 1000. (One could argue that I already have.) One way to ensure finding out the answer to that question is, you guessed it, to donate!

15 comments:

  1. You have me thinking about my own blog, which now numbers 1405 posts, complete with almost 13,000 photographs (including other images and videos), written over a period just shy of 11 years. Unlike you, I feel more compelled to keep it going now than I did to begin it in the first place, but I addressed the "what made me do it" in my very first post. In fact, that was the title of that post. Without going into all the reasons why I decided to start a blog, I will just tell you that my initial reasons still remain, but that it has become so much more than what drove me to start it in the first place.

    Although my readership was initially "invitation only," it is now all but completely private, having become my journal as much as anything else. That fits with your fourth standard or reason for continuing your blog, though it may only help my own family as opposed to being a contribution to the world, like yours. I don't have your intellectual firepower, but I've decided that's okay. The important thing for me is that my posterity knows who I was. In that sense, my blog is a "Kilroy was here" kind of thing. We all want to leave our mark on the world.

    In your case, I think there is so much going on in your head that it might explode if you didn't get some of it out there! ;-) This is not to say that I don't think I have anything of value to contribute to the world, but only that I want to leave behind something that is of a more personal nature. I also want to remember. Someone once said that memories are our second chance at happiness, and I do get a lot of pleasure out of looking back at some of my old posts, just reliving some of the precious moments that have made my life worth living.

    I have spent countless hours in "purposeful and systematic" categorizing of memories, and the pictures to go with them, from the earliest to the present day, and I don't regret a single moment. It sounds like you are also happy with the time you have spent on your blog, so keep it up! You can probably tell that I would love to see you in a personal as well as an intellectual light. From what I know of you, you are much more than a great intellect. Let others see it, too. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks for reading! And congratulations on 1405 posts, that's incredibly impressive!

      Delete
  2. So, I qualify as one that has read or listened to all 100. I do look forward to each one of them. In fact on Friday I was wondering why you had not posted until I realized it wasn’t Saturday. Your blog takes me places I would never go,otherwise. keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comments and the compliment. I'm glad you're enjoying them, and I hope that will continue to be the case.

      Delete
  3. So congrats on 100 podcasts and posts. Here's a challenge I'll toss out (maybe you covered it on an earlier podcast though).

    Take Christopher Hitchens' statement on Mormonism in https://brucegerencser.net/2018/03/christopher-hitchens-thought-evangelist-billy-graham-was-a-con-artist/. Basically it's a type of fossil of a 'successful con'. Namely none of the important beliefs that underlie Mormonism happened. Joseph Smith did not speak with an angel, there were no gold tablets, no pre-Columbus settlement of America by Jews from Israel. To the degree you've been defending Mormonism since I've started listening to you, your defense works in the same way that a defense of 'Jedi' as a religion may work. Traits, behaviors and beliefs might provide a useful survival advantage by pushing people to be less fragile (avoiding troublesome acts like drinking, taking precautionary acts like saving, being prepared to be self-sufficient, skeptical towards assurances that civilization will always be have our back etc.).

    But lots of stuff works but is wrong. The earth centered view of the solar system worked for lots of predictions about seasons, star positions etc, but ultimately it was wrong and if you insist on using it sooner or later it's going to bite you (for example, if you try to launch a manned Mars mission using it).

    On approach might be to build a post-Modern apology for Mormonism. This would consist of more or less admitting it was a con at the very beginning but because it 'works' it's useful to proceed as if it was true all along. A more traditional approach would be to maintain it is all true from the beginning however amazing and unlikely that seems.

    Building a defense of Mormonism around 'it works' may work for a while for both camps but I think sooner or later the people in the traditional camp are going to start to get suspicious. Sooner or later the whole question is going to come up and the traditional side will unite with the skeptical side and demand the defender stake out his ground clearly and tell us if he's going for a post-modern or traditional view of things...(or is he a dishonest post-modernist who will pretend to believe it all when he really doesn't because 'it's useful'?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ug... a video... I guess at least it's short. For some reason I have no problem spending 20 minutes reading something, but if someone asks me to watch even a short video I recoil, but at least I can increase the playback speed...

      The only thing I caught was a remark at 2:20 where he declares that Mormonism is entirely a racket. I didn't hear him saying anything about it being a fossil of a successful con, which is a more interesting accusation. Saying Mormonism is currently a racket is pretty difficult. A racket to do what? I've looked into a lot of anti-mormon stuff, and almost no one talks about the leaders of the church profiting from things, because as far as I can tell they don't. I mean I'm sure someone is saying it, but for many people (like Billy Graham) the obvious riches they receive is the #1 criticism, for Mormonism I don't think it would crack the top 20.

      In any case, as far as the fossil of a successful con. That's a pretty big topic, particularly when you then go on to list every event of early Mormon history, and there are numerous websites devoted to dealing with that stuff. Which is to say it's not the sort of thing I could cover in one post, or even a dozen, that said, if there was one thing you were particularly interested in hearing my take on, I could probably spend a post covering that.

      As far as my own form of apologetics, you make the point that I seem to mostly defend Mormonism from the perspective of "it works". I do this because there appeared to be several avenues of it "working" which were receiving inadequate coverage (particularly far out stuff like AI and Fermi's). And I felt the "I'm a believer!" space had plenty of attention.

      But I am a believer. I firmly believe in an afterlife, and I believe that South Park will be right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrBIm1zKhW4 and Mormons is the correct answer. If I am trying to fill a hole in Mormon apologetics it's those people how believe, but feel that some behaviors feel silly, and some of the ideology feels weird. To which I am saying it's not silly, "it works" and it's not weird it's actually the ideology you would arrive at if you really thought about how to test intelligences.

      The historical side of things just isn't really my beat. But I have read a lot about the controversies there, and it hasn't shaken my faith (in fact often times it's strengthened it.) As far as I'm concerned there is no "smoking gun". No indisputable, you'd have to be crazy to deny it evidence of it all originally being a con.

      Delete
    2. True he was mostly concentrating on Graham & I think he used con initially for Scientology. Fossil is my way of paraphrasing...

      A fossil of a con would be something that began as a con and now has a momentum of its own. Scientology might be an example of this you'd agree upon. L Ron Hubbard, IMO, was a combination of lies, delusions and outright hustling (the story is he decide to be a 'church' when he realized he owed the IRS a lot of money and Psychology didn't buy into him as the next Sigmund Freud). But what is it today? Well it's a huge real estate empire but it's leaders needn't cling to the 'religion'. They could probably make as much or more money reorganizing as a combination of a hedge fund and self-help publishing business. Yet Hubbard's 'con' has a type of momentum of its own manipulating even leaders who are supposedly 'in charge' today long after Hubbard is gone.

      So we come back to the 'post modern' defense of 'it works'....which can be said about Scientology on some levels at least. But 'it works' is not the same as true and wrong ideas can yield correct predictions. Example, there's a raging debate over why low carb diets work so well to lose weight. On theory is about the insulin cycle, another claims a no-carb diet causes people to eat less. One or both might be wrong yet yield a belief that 'works'.

      Can you claim 'it works' is sufficient or if it was a con it matters?

      Delete
    3. If it was a con it would matter, but after nearly 200 years, it's unlikely that some new incontrovertible evidence to that effect is going to emerge. Rather you have lots of things which some people view as damning and some people view as inconsequential. I'm on the inconsequential end, and the fact that "it works" was one of the many factors which contributed to putting me at that end.

      Delete
  4. I don't think this holds. If it was a con you say it matters, but after 200 years what are the odds we'll find evidence.... You sound like you murdered someone and you think you're OK because you cleaned up all the DNA evidence. If it matters then it should be disturbing that it is getting more difficult to prove it wasn't a con. Being relieved that it's getting harder to say one way or the other implies to me that you suspect deep down if they invent the time machine tomorrow, the results aren't going to be very positive.

    I suspect you have a conflict with traditional Mormons but you aren't aware it's coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect you'd be surprise how traditional I am. Also the kind of things that would shake my faith are very unlikely to be historical (which is another way of saying I don't think there's any murder or con to uncover). The kind of things that would shake my faith is if we do find other aliens, or if we figure out how to upload brains. That would falsify my concept of the way God works. Poorly documented accusations of ancient crimes which I don't even consider to be criminal (i.e. Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old) are much less likely to do it.

      Delete
    2. Well by con I was thinking more like the entire Mormon thing was made up. No golden tablets, just a forgery or best possible case Smith was delusional.

      I once engaged with a Christian that said he would consider uncovering the skeleton of a crucified Jesus would be the evidence that would shake his faith. But the reality is it wouldn't. Such a discovery would be meet by simply scaling up the skepticism with motivated reasoning (i.e. "prove that this skeleton is *that* Jesus rather than some other poor sap"....much like we do with global warming today). If you were confronted with aliens or uploaded brains you would most likely just deny the uploaded brains were real (see Westworld where this idea is explored a bit more as well as the question of whether the Star Trek transporter is really a device of mass murder). Needless to say aliens can be explained away by tweaking theology. Notice back when there were projects to teach apes sign language there was briefly the possibility we could have intelligent conversations with non-human animals. I don't recall anyone sounding the alarm a the Theology Firehouse so they could be prepared to rewrite everything.

      Delete
    3. I understand what you mean by a con. And I understand that you're saying that I'm deluded or prepared to be deluded myself, and I don't think there's any point in my continuing to try and convince you otherwise. It's one thing to question a person as to what he would do. It's another, when he tells you, to say that he's lying...

      Delete
  5. I find that I am still thinking about this post as well as the responses it elicited, in part because it’s a good example of why I choose to keep my own blog private, but also because it represents the sort of thing that true believers often face when challenged on points of doctrine. I don’t have the intellectual firepower to go head-to-head with those who would use their own intellect to beat me up with their superior debating skills. I have encountered this even among so-called believers, but only those who regard themselves and their points of view as more enlightened than what is taught from the pulpit.

    I, too, am a traditional Mormon, born and bred in the faith, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t questioned everything I was ever taught, asking myself if I believe because I was taught to believe or if I believe because I have the genuine faith to believe, having put it to the test and finding out that it does indeed “work.” I’m happy to report that it’s the latter, but it’s more than that. And maybe that’s why I find myself still thinking about this post.

    It seems to me that when people debate points of doctrine, it’s often more to be “right” than to actually persuade, so let me just say that it is not my intention to convince anyone of anything, but merely to offer another point of view — the point being that there are things that are unknowable. So what would make a non-believer believe, and, conversely, what would make a believer stop believing? In the latter category are those who lose their faith, perhaps because they lack the “proof” to go with it. And then there are those in the former category — the non-believers who decide they believe after all.

    Since I have never been a non-believer, I can’t speak for that group of people, but I’m quite sure they have their reasons, just as I have mine. Again, that’s why I choose to keep my blog private. I want to be able to talk about those reasons without subjecting them to ridicule. I know myself well enough to know that I am not equipped to deal with it, not because I fear having my faith shaken, but because my reasons for believing — my “proof” if you will — consists of feelings too tender and experiences too sacred to share with the general public, some of whom don’t even want to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And so it was that I woke up the other morning thinking of Aron Ralston, the now famous Colorado climber who, 15 years ago, accomplished one of the most daring self-rescues ever reported. After five days of being trapped by a boulder while hiking a slot canyon in southern Utah, Ralston succeeded in amputating his lower right arm with a dull knife in order to free himself. As unimaginable as this feat was, there was one aspect of the story that resonates to this day. According to Ralston, he had a vision of a 3-year-old boy running across a sunlit floor to be scooped up by a one-armed man. He understood this vision to be of his future son and decided that his survival required drastic action. If he did not rescue himself now, he would not have the physical strength remaining to do it later.

    I wrote a post about Aron Ralston because I strongly identified with the experience he had while trapped by that boulder. Had I not had an experience of a similar nature, I might have been tempted to write off Ralston's "vision" as mere delirium, but I happen to believe it was real. And why not? Does everything that happens need a plausible explanation in order to be believed? As one who has been taught that we lived with our Heavenly Father as spirit children before we were sent to this earth to receive a body, it is very easy for me to believe that Ralston did indeed see his future son. And even if the delirium explanation seems more plausible, I am here to tell you that I believe him.

    In December of 2009, when the now-married Ralston was expecting his first child, he gave an interview to Meredith Viera of The Today Show in which he told her that he believed he would soon meet that little boy who buoyed his spirits during his life-or-death ordeal. He said, “I can’t wait to see him. He helped save my life in that canyon, and I get to tell him ‘thank you’ in a couple of months.”

    It is interesting to me that in 2003, when Ralston had his accident, he didn't believe in God. In an interview he said: "At 16, I asked all these monks some serious questions and they didn't come up with the answers, and I just decided I didn't believe in God. And I always thought, you know, if everything hit the fan, then I might turn around and say, you know, a couple of Hail Marys, "Can you get me out of here?" And in all those days, I never did once, not even in the crevasse. I never thought of some God or some omniscient being that'd lean down and give me help, and I feel, actually, if I had believed that, I just would've stopped and waited for it, and I would've died."

    Hollywood, who made a movie about the Aron Ralston saga — 127 Hours — doesn’t give much credit to God either, for although the episode with the little boy was lightly touched upon, it wasn’t given the weight or importance that Ralston himself gave it. Naturally, I was disappointed. In my way of thinking, God did lean down and give him help. Ralston’s own religious upbringing does not teach that there is a premortal existence where the spirit children of a loving Heavenly Father could possibly have enough of a stake in their own earthly existence that they would make themselves known in such a way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The idea of a premortal existence is not unheard of in Christianity, but the idea is either open to interpretation or, as in the case of Origen, from whom we have the earliest surviving Christian writings on the topic, the soul is assigned a body as a penalty for its sin of looking downward toward the corrupt earth. How grateful I am for the loving teachings of my own faith, where the idea of a premortal existence is most definitely taught, along with that of eternal families. Not only is it comforting, but, as a mother, it makes perfect sense to me. And when Aron held that little boy in his arms, I have a feeling it made sense to him, too.

    Human experience is replete with unexplained phenomena. Some choose to ask why; others, why not? I understand why some may be skeptical of our beliefs, but I don’t think believing means you have to check your intellect at the door. It’s called living by faith. As one of our Church leaders said, “Faith, to be faith, must center around something not known. Faith, to be faith, must go beyond that for which there is confirming evidence. Faith, to be faith, must go into the unknown. Faith, to be faith, must walk to the edge of the light, and then a few steps into the darkness. If everything has to be known, if everything has to be explained, if everything has to be certified, then there is no need for faith. Indeed, there is no room for it.”

    I would share more, but there are certain things that one has to find out for themselves. All I can say is that I have made the effort to find out for myself, that I do believe, and that, yes, it works.

    ReplyDelete