Enough Said!t
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Ponder
Ponder
Did you ever ponder?
Ever since I read the story of the birth of Jesus, the word “ponder” has fascinated me.
“Mary pondered all these things in her heart.”
This is what the Bible says Mary did during the time of the birth of Jesus.
When you think about what the phrase “all these things” refers to, it’s no wonder she pondered.
Picture it this way:
Here’s a teenage girl who just had a baby in the back of a stall in a barn, with some confusion as to just who the father is. Her husband is carrying on about taxes, and the fact that the guy who runs this part of the country has decided to endorse infanticide. And if that’s not enough to think about, there is all this traffic of visiting wise guys, sheep ranchers, and angels who keep dropping by with questions, statements, and singing. To top it off, the animals she is cooped up with talk. Have you met many cows that speak Hebrew? All of this would certainly give someone something to think about. I think “ponder” is the perfect word for what Mary did.
Do you ever “ponder?”
I do.
Job “pondered” a lot I bet as he sat upon his ash heap.
How about Jonah, sitting in the steamy, dark, wet whale belly awash in gastric juices and half-digested squid.
I really bet those guys did some pondering.
“Pondering” is ingrained into my psyche. I do it everyday. Sometimes to the point of frustration, and sometimes the proverbial light actually comes on.
Do ut des
"I give, that you may give"
t
Did you ever ponder?
Ever since I read the story of the birth of Jesus, the word “ponder” has fascinated me.
“Mary pondered all these things in her heart.”
This is what the Bible says Mary did during the time of the birth of Jesus.
When you think about what the phrase “all these things” refers to, it’s no wonder she pondered.
Picture it this way:
Here’s a teenage girl who just had a baby in the back of a stall in a barn, with some confusion as to just who the father is. Her husband is carrying on about taxes, and the fact that the guy who runs this part of the country has decided to endorse infanticide. And if that’s not enough to think about, there is all this traffic of visiting wise guys, sheep ranchers, and angels who keep dropping by with questions, statements, and singing. To top it off, the animals she is cooped up with talk. Have you met many cows that speak Hebrew? All of this would certainly give someone something to think about. I think “ponder” is the perfect word for what Mary did.
Do you ever “ponder?”
I do.
Job “pondered” a lot I bet as he sat upon his ash heap.
How about Jonah, sitting in the steamy, dark, wet whale belly awash in gastric juices and half-digested squid.
I really bet those guys did some pondering.
“Pondering” is ingrained into my psyche. I do it everyday. Sometimes to the point of frustration, and sometimes the proverbial light actually comes on.
Do ut des
"I give, that you may give"
t
Words To Learn and Live By
These words to live by are from a tattered notebook of quotes written down many, many years ago.
I have no idea who should receive credit for these, but I read, re-read, and try to internalize the truths contained within them:
Learn it. Know it. Live it!
(mine)
Ultra posse nemo obligatur
"Nobody is bound by ability"
t
I have no idea who should receive credit for these, but I read, re-read, and try to internalize the truths contained within them:
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who do not have it."
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
"All truth passes through 3 stages:
First, it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!"
"While we are postponing, life speeds by."
"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good."
Learn it. Know it. Live it!
(mine)
Ultra posse nemo obligatur
"Nobody is bound by ability"
t
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Useful
111308
“Useful” is a very interesting word. My truck is useful, my computer is useful, and my tools are useful.
Is religion useful?
As I have read and studied about ancient Greece and Rome I have noticed something interesting. It is said that, all religions were, to the common people, equally true, to the philosophers, equally false, and to the governing bodies, equally useful.
There is that interesting word “useful.”
The way ancient governing bodies used the word “useful” was similar to how one might have used a fence to keep the livestock contained, or, in reality, like a boundary to keep society in check.
An important point to remember is; religion based on truth, when reduced to only a sociological function [usefulness], will disintegrate through abuse.
Which leads to this conclusion:
History shows us that pragmatism [a variation of usefulness], defined by doing whatever works, in the long run doesn’t work because it is captive to the moment.
Omnes viae Romam ducunt
“All roads lead to Rome”
1a
“Useful” is a very interesting word. My truck is useful, my computer is useful, and my tools are useful.
Is religion useful?
As I have read and studied about ancient Greece and Rome I have noticed something interesting. It is said that, all religions were, to the common people, equally true, to the philosophers, equally false, and to the governing bodies, equally useful.
There is that interesting word “useful.”
The way ancient governing bodies used the word “useful” was similar to how one might have used a fence to keep the livestock contained, or, in reality, like a boundary to keep society in check.
An important point to remember is; religion based on truth, when reduced to only a sociological function [usefulness], will disintegrate through abuse.
Which leads to this conclusion:
History shows us that pragmatism [a variation of usefulness], defined by doing whatever works, in the long run doesn’t work because it is captive to the moment.
Omnes viae Romam ducunt
“All roads lead to Rome”
1a
Meaninglessness
111008
Meaningless, Meaningless, All Is Meaningless!
Said the writer of Ecclesiastes.
I think I understand where he was coming from.
Solomon and Sisyphus actually came to the same understanding of meaninglessness by way of experience:
Monotony finds no relief in adding variety or changing our attitude about it. Activity does not create meaning; it is the other way around.
If life, existentially speaking, has no meaning, then a change of attitude does not change the reality of meaninglessness. It only changes how we function in a meaningless world, which was exactly Jean Paul Sartre’s point in his book No Exit.
What difference does it make, when the boat is going down, if you stand on the deck and salute or just sit back down and play a last game of poker?
Dum vita est, spes est.
“While life is, hope is.”
Or
“While there is life, there is hope.”
Meaningless, Meaningless, All Is Meaningless!
Said the writer of Ecclesiastes.
I think I understand where he was coming from.
Solomon and Sisyphus actually came to the same understanding of meaninglessness by way of experience:
Monotony finds no relief in adding variety or changing our attitude about it. Activity does not create meaning; it is the other way around.
If life, existentially speaking, has no meaning, then a change of attitude does not change the reality of meaninglessness. It only changes how we function in a meaningless world, which was exactly Jean Paul Sartre’s point in his book No Exit.
What difference does it make, when the boat is going down, if you stand on the deck and salute or just sit back down and play a last game of poker?
Dum vita est, spes est.
“While life is, hope is.”
Or
“While there is life, there is hope.”
t
Confession
110508
Confession
“A confession of our loyalty to the Bible is not enough. The most radical denials of biblical truth frequently coexist with a professed regard for the authority and testimony of the Bible. When men use the very words of the Bible to promote heresy, when the Word of truth is perverted to serve error, nothing less than a confession of Faith will serve publicly to draw the lines between truth and error.”
C. H. Spurgeon
The honesty, or lack there of, will reveal the bias of the one doing a study.
Often times I am amazed at the statements emerging from the mouths of people I consider to be well educated. I do believe they are honest in their opinions, but sometimes doubts do creep in based on the statements they make.
In the church today we have men who were, and in some cases continue to be, giants of the faith. History is replete with examples of relationships, sermons, and books by such men. Now for the questions:
If a minister has a friendship that can be described as “close” with another minister who is considered, evidenced through writings, sermons, ect… to be “conservative,” how can the first man not defend the beliefs, in subsequent years, that helped to form the original relationship?
I have yet to find a minister, within the evangelical world I dwell, that would truly disagree with Spurgeon at any point. They might put on airs of disagreement, but when pressed to explain their position they cannot do it in an exhaustive manner, much less a “Reader’s Digest” version. Most of the arguments I encounter are 95% emotional, 3% factual, and 2% logical.
I must confess:
I do not have all, or any large number, of the answers,
and
I would definitely defer to Spurgeon when his answer is in line with scripture and the men of the faith who came before him.
"Nemo solus satis sapit"
"Nobody [alone] is clever enough"
Confession
“A confession of our loyalty to the Bible is not enough. The most radical denials of biblical truth frequently coexist with a professed regard for the authority and testimony of the Bible. When men use the very words of the Bible to promote heresy, when the Word of truth is perverted to serve error, nothing less than a confession of Faith will serve publicly to draw the lines between truth and error.”
C. H. Spurgeon
The honesty, or lack there of, will reveal the bias of the one doing a study.
Often times I am amazed at the statements emerging from the mouths of people I consider to be well educated. I do believe they are honest in their opinions, but sometimes doubts do creep in based on the statements they make.
In the church today we have men who were, and in some cases continue to be, giants of the faith. History is replete with examples of relationships, sermons, and books by such men. Now for the questions:
If a minister has a friendship that can be described as “close” with another minister who is considered, evidenced through writings, sermons, ect… to be “conservative,” how can the first man not defend the beliefs, in subsequent years, that helped to form the original relationship?
I have yet to find a minister, within the evangelical world I dwell, that would truly disagree with Spurgeon at any point. They might put on airs of disagreement, but when pressed to explain their position they cannot do it in an exhaustive manner, much less a “Reader’s Digest” version. Most of the arguments I encounter are 95% emotional, 3% factual, and 2% logical.
I must confess:
I do not have all, or any large number, of the answers,
and
I would definitely defer to Spurgeon when his answer is in line with scripture and the men of the faith who came before him.
"Nemo solus satis sapit"
"Nobody [alone] is clever enough"
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wars And Rumors of Wars
Wars and Rumors of Wars
102908
Here is something I have heard often:
99% of church splits are not over theology, but over personality.
There was a time in my life when I actually believed this and it gave me some comfort.
Now I think it is just something people say to feel better about themselves and deflect fault and reality.
It is as if personality is some kind of blank check for acting like an idiot. Too often, personality is an excuse for not changing. "Hey, this is just the way I am." It's as if personality is not a spiritual or weighty issue.
It is imperative that we understand that we can't just wiggle off the hook that easily, as if we didn’t have the ability to change the situation since it was a personality issue.
I don't see Jesus giving us any wiggle room for disunity based upon personality differences. Study the apostle's personality profiles and you will figure out that we can't just play the personality card and allow our guilty consciences to be soothed.
Jesus picked, I think intentionally, a politically diverse group in order to prove that unity is based upon something other than sameness (uniformity).
Just another thought.
Peior est bello timor ipse belli
“Worse is the fear of war than the war itself.”
Sunday, October 12, 2008
What Do We See?
Substantial healing of relationships.
This must be evident within a group of Christians.
If it is not presently observable are we practicing Biblical Christianity?
Substantial healing does not imply perfection.
It does imply that it is visibly present and observable.
When we look around at eleven o'clock on Sunday morning what do we see?
Claude os, aperi oculos!
"Shut your mouth, open your eyes."
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Word Of The Day
Liminality
Def = (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold") is a psychological, neurological, or metaphysical subjective, conscious state of being on the "threshold" of or between two different existential planes.
The moment when something of importance happens to you, for the first or only time, may not be recognized at the time as a right of passage or ritual event. Only much later will you see its crucial moment in the scheme of things.
There is a word for this situation: “Liminality”
“Liminality” describes the transitional phase of personal change, when we are neither in an old state of being nor a new, not really aware of the implications of the event.
All stages of life include liminality.
Life consist of moments crossing thresholds.
As we grow older we tend to see the big picture.
Only the passage of time will reveal how these moments fit into the overall plan of our lives.
“A hundred years goes faster than you think. Don't blink”
KC
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
IT'S HARD TO SCORE IF YOU ARE ALWAYS ON DEFENSE
It is truly amazing to watch people, in various situations, react to things that they do not like. Throughout my academic journey in psychology I have been exposed to numerous ideas. Some are reasonable, and some are, to put it in civil terms, ridiculous. I really worry about those who enter this field without a solid Biblical foundation. They are very vulnerable to the many false philosophies that permeate the world of psychology.As of late, one area that has caused me to intensify my study is the realm of personal defense mechanisms. Most people never give this area much thought in their daily lives, but understanding this set of concepts will open the door to better communication, negotiation, leadership, and getting along better with others in just about every area of life.
I have a favorite quote from Epictetus, a philosopher who was educated in Roman Stoicism under Zeno between (336-264 B.C.). Zeno founded the Stoa Poikile (Painted Porch), the last of the four most famous schools in ancient Athens. It reads: “What disturbs people’s minds is not events, but their judgment of events.”
From this prologue I will proceed to work through some of the personal defense mechanisms people use everyday.
First and probably foremost is:
Selective Exposure
Def = Most people will minimize their exposure to ideas that run contrary to their own beliefs
This minimizes challenges to, or challenges of beliefs. This can even happen in light of new facts emerging about the contrary ideas.
The most common outcome is that selective exposure is very likely to work in an opposite way. Studies, with an emphasis of those associated with brain washing, indicate people who do not have a chance to compare and defend their ideas are most apt to abandon them when they are confronted with an opposing view. The real astounding fact is this happens even when the opposing view is unsound.
However, those who have had an opportunity to test and defend their views are most likely to hold on to them when challenged.
Rather than welcome the chance to confront what they think is an inferior idea, and stimulate deeper thought, they seem to fear such ideas.
Bottom line:
You can often tell how secure a person is in their beliefs by how well they tolerate (not necessarily accept) opposing views. I am in no way endorsing “tolerance” as described by post-modern and relativistic minded people, but I am referring to tolerance being defined as the ability to listen to others expound their position and being prepared to defend my own. If my beliefs are secure and founded on the truth of God’s Word, listening first, and then refuting other views is not a defensive situation, but a chance to share truth with others.
An opportunity often missed by many.
I will end a little different this time with a non-Latin quote:
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
C. S. Lewis
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Cart Before The Horse
Quote
"Moral battles are not won in the external world first.
They are always a result flowing naturally
from a cause, and the cause is in the internal world of one's thoughts."
Francis A. Schaeffer
"Moral battles are not won in the external world first.
They are always a result flowing naturally
from a cause, and the cause is in the internal world of one's thoughts."
Francis A. Schaeffer
Friday, October 3, 2008
Saying too much
Sometimes saying less is just as informative as saying more.
Throughout my life I have written down thoughts, ideas, song lyrics, humorous quotes, and numerous lessons for teaching.
Here is a sample from my redundancy list:
“Learning process,” learning is a process.
“Belief system,” a belief is a system.
“Leadership role,” leadership is a role.
Here is a sample from my contradictory words list:
New tradition
Live recording
Jumbo shrimp
Partial cease-fire
Civil war
Silent alarm
Ridendo dicere verum
“To tell the truth while laughing”
Sometimes saying less is just as informative as saying more.
Throughout my life I have written down thoughts, ideas, song lyrics, humorous quotes, and numerous lessons for teaching.
Here is a sample from my redundancy list:
“Learning process,” learning is a process.
“Belief system,” a belief is a system.
“Leadership role,” leadership is a role.
Here is a sample from my contradictory words list:
New tradition
Live recording
Jumbo shrimp
Partial cease-fire
Civil war
Silent alarm
Ridendo dicere verum
“To tell the truth while laughing”
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Soul Incompetency
John Leland
Go look him up.
He was one of the most popular and controversial Baptist of the early to mid 1800s.
Leland took the concept of self-government in politics to imply personal autonomy in religion.
“We will be free, we will rule ourselves,” he wrote. Leland took the concept of religious autonomy so far that he was even opposed to parents teaching their own children. He warned that, “it is very iniquitous [for a man] to bind the consciences of his children.” This was a radically individualistic conception of Biblical teaching: He urged people to make a deliberate effort to free themselves from all cultural authorities, whether church, state, teachers, or even family.
Leland’s rejection of religious authority led him to insist that the simple and the ignorant are actually more competent than the educated leadership to read and understand the Bible: “ Is not the simple man, who makes nature and reason his study, a competent judge of things?” This is an early expression of the Baptist concept of Soul Competency.
Just a thought. I hope it provokes further study.
Licet volare si in tergo aquilae volat
“A man can fly if he wishes, if he rides on the back of an eagle”
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Question of the day:
Can a person articulate a belief system without being creedal?
Answer:
If the focus of a person’s faith corresponds to the referent of the description and not the description itself, it is entirely possible.
The Nicene Creed
Church Fathers
I believe in one God, the Father almighty.
Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all worlds,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten not made, of one being with the Father,
through whom (him) all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Follow-up questions:
Why are so many afraid to say they affirm this statement of beliefs?
What do they believe?
If they put their own beliefs into words what would be the difference?
Can a person articulate a belief system without being creedal?
Answer:
If the focus of a person’s faith corresponds to the referent of the description and not the description itself, it is entirely possible.
The Nicene Creed
Church Fathers
I believe in one God, the Father almighty.
Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all worlds,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten not made, of one being with the Father,
through whom (him) all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Follow-up questions:
Why are so many afraid to say they affirm this statement of beliefs?
What do they believe?
If they put their own beliefs into words what would be the difference?
Oculi plus vident quam oculus
"Several eyes see more than only one"
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Groupthink
Groupthink
Def = is the tendency for groups to reach a consensus prematurely because the desire for harmony overrides the process of critical thinking and the search for the best decision.
As introduced by Irving Janis 1982 in his many academic writings
A question comes to mind:
Is maintaining cohesion more important than developing good ideas?
Groupthink has its beginning when a close group becomes somewhat isolated. The leader(s) then become more controlling. The leader controls the discussion in order to promote his or her own preference.
What are the symptoms?
Illusion of invulnerability = the members believe they can do no wrong. This is usually followed by “mindguards” which are individuals who take it upon themselves to censor dissenters.
Members eventually censor their own behavior. This gives the appearance of little to no disagreement.
With no dissention the group then believes they have the moral high ground.
The group is also lulled into a false unanimity.
The group then begins to denigrate those remaining within the group who do not just “go along to get along.”
What are the consequences?
Generally only discusses one or two ideas.
Fails to look for all possible solutions.
Commits the mistake of not assessing all the risks.
Avoids discussing the downside of the chosen idea.
Never developing any contingency plans in case the idea fails.
I would offer a few ways to prevent this situation:
Promote open inquiry and skepticism.
Possibly appoint someone to research the downside.
Invite open debate when possible.
If plausible alternatives are offered, assign them to smaller groups to study.
Once a decision is made, come back to the table after a time of reflection and if it still remains solid, move forward.
The leader should refrain from offering an opinion to make sure other options have a chance to come to the surface.
Research, Research, Research!
Just a project I am working on. Maybe the formal paper will be written soon. Only time will tell.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
"The world desires to be deceived; therefore it is."
Petronius
Def = is the tendency for groups to reach a consensus prematurely because the desire for harmony overrides the process of critical thinking and the search for the best decision.
As introduced by Irving Janis 1982 in his many academic writings
A question comes to mind:
Is maintaining cohesion more important than developing good ideas?
Groupthink has its beginning when a close group becomes somewhat isolated. The leader(s) then become more controlling. The leader controls the discussion in order to promote his or her own preference.
What are the symptoms?
Illusion of invulnerability = the members believe they can do no wrong. This is usually followed by “mindguards” which are individuals who take it upon themselves to censor dissenters.
Members eventually censor their own behavior. This gives the appearance of little to no disagreement.
With no dissention the group then believes they have the moral high ground.
The group is also lulled into a false unanimity.
The group then begins to denigrate those remaining within the group who do not just “go along to get along.”
What are the consequences?
Generally only discusses one or two ideas.
Fails to look for all possible solutions.
Commits the mistake of not assessing all the risks.
Avoids discussing the downside of the chosen idea.
Never developing any contingency plans in case the idea fails.
I would offer a few ways to prevent this situation:
Promote open inquiry and skepticism.
Possibly appoint someone to research the downside.
Invite open debate when possible.
If plausible alternatives are offered, assign them to smaller groups to study.
Once a decision is made, come back to the table after a time of reflection and if it still remains solid, move forward.
The leader should refrain from offering an opinion to make sure other options have a chance to come to the surface.
Research, Research, Research!
Just a project I am working on. Maybe the formal paper will be written soon. Only time will tell.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
"The world desires to be deceived; therefore it is."
Petronius
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Thoughts About Life
As I sat and thought about why we “do church,” and why come to a building to meet together in a religious community, I came to several conclusions.
This being one:
We need each other, and so we need this place
To worship and praise and laugh and cry and think.
We call ourselves a family gathered by God
Not because this place is in itself holy ground,
But because what we do here and say here, and are here
Make it so.
Ad augusta per angusta
"To high places by narrow roads"
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Questions Anyone?
Questions are the lifeblood of knowledge. The fear of asking when the moment calls for the question has limited many an inquiry that might have lead to a wealth of discovery. How many times have you had questions in a given situation, but you never ask because of the fear of revealing ignorance, the fear of public ridicule, the fear of loss of perceived status (being smarter than you actually are), or maybe the fear of the answer you know will come? Here is a question. What now?
Quod nocet, saepe docet
"That which harms, often teaches."
Quod nocet, saepe docet
"That which harms, often teaches."
Logic 101
Non-Christian philosophers from the time of the Greeks until the late 1990s had three things in common. First, they were rationalist. That means they believed everything was balanced on the premise of reason alone. They believed that man could begin from himself and gather enough information to form his own universe. Rationalism rejects any knowledge outside of man himself, with a special exclusion reserved for God.
Second, they took reason seriously. They accepted the fact that the mind thinks in terms of antithesis. To elaborate, that with their minds people can come to the conclusion that certain things are true while certain other things are not true, that some things are right in contrast to other things being wrong.
Logic 101:
“A” is “A” and “A” is not “non-A”
Third, they believed in the validity of reason. Non-Christian philosophers, before 1800, were also optimistic. They thought they would and could succeed in their goal to establish by reason alone a unified and true knowledge of what really is. When that happened people would have the answers to all the questions of the universe and for all that people are and all they think. They hoped for something, which would unify all knowledge and all of life.
To be continued…
Malum quidem nullum esse sine aliquo bono
"There is, to be sure, no evil without something good."
Second, they took reason seriously. They accepted the fact that the mind thinks in terms of antithesis. To elaborate, that with their minds people can come to the conclusion that certain things are true while certain other things are not true, that some things are right in contrast to other things being wrong.
Logic 101:
“A” is “A” and “A” is not “non-A”
Third, they believed in the validity of reason. Non-Christian philosophers, before 1800, were also optimistic. They thought they would and could succeed in their goal to establish by reason alone a unified and true knowledge of what really is. When that happened people would have the answers to all the questions of the universe and for all that people are and all they think. They hoped for something, which would unify all knowledge and all of life.
To be continued…
Malum quidem nullum esse sine aliquo bono
"There is, to be sure, no evil without something good."
Monday, September 22, 2008
Docendo discimus
The blog name comes from a quote attributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca, or as some may call him, Seneca The Younger. Docendo discimus is humbly translated "we learn by teaching."
It is my belief that the evidence of learning comes from the ability to teach what we have learned to others.
The blog name and signature are employed with a light heart, but they are used because of the message they convey. I will leave it to the reader to research meanings of words and imagery that appear on this blog. One important aspect of learning is a degree of personal investment. To truly understand a subject, being fed information is only one component in the equation. A person must spend time to research and draw conclusions based on objective study of a given topic, word, idea, or a complete belief system.
Veritatem dies aperit.
Time discovers truth.
On Anger, 2, line 22
It is my belief that the evidence of learning comes from the ability to teach what we have learned to others.
The blog name and signature are employed with a light heart, but they are used because of the message they convey. I will leave it to the reader to research meanings of words and imagery that appear on this blog. One important aspect of learning is a degree of personal investment. To truly understand a subject, being fed information is only one component in the equation. A person must spend time to research and draw conclusions based on objective study of a given topic, word, idea, or a complete belief system.
Veritatem dies aperit.
Time discovers truth.
On Anger, 2, line 22
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)