Let's say that there is an influence that we experience, but let's also say that there is a type of influence that is left off to others, to do as they please with it, which influence could be seen as a tree that drops off its fruit, so others can eat of them. The fruit of our efforts are those who also see themselves as influencers, who are the audience of those who choose to eat of the fruit that the influencer produces. So what is produced from those influencers, or those who show a lot of influence, then becomes that which is eaten by those who value those influences, since their influence is not just one but many. So, influence as a tree, where the tree is the one who influences, is a metaphor for how the tree interacts with its influence environment. How does this work?
Next, the fruit from the tree is that which shows how influential a particular tree is. But growth for the tree occurs regardless if it does or does not produce fruit. How influence works is that the tree grows by absorbing rainwater and things like that but to hold on to influence, the tree must interact with other influences that it has interacted with beforehand for growth to occur. I have avoided personal pronouns up to this point but let's classify the tree as male as the Germans do. So, the tree is an abstract characterization, until you characterize the above as a person who has the necessary background to fill in the above abstraction. And I could have chosen something like the earth, which is female because of the definite article of the substantive, but I am feeling male today.
Thus, he who has grown as a result of his influence experience will want to have his fruit fed back to him, but the result is that of loss rather than gain. And the loss comes in when he finds out that those who have eaten of his fruits will not return them back in the same way that he has produced them. Rather those who have eaten from him will spit out his seeds while digesting his work. But there is also a gardener or gardeners, if you will the tree's audience, who will only care for his fruit and not for his growth. So, the gardeners care for the tree only in so far as he produces fruit, which will only come about if he chooses to digest what the gardener(s) has(have) given to him.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Friday, March 30, 2018
What happened on the DL this week?
I think that it was yesterday that I caught A&O ministry's DL (Radio Free Geneva) program that they had on Tuesday. So, it must have been Thursday, when I saw the Tuesday program. And I believe that today is Friday. Anyways, Dr. White was responding to an Arminian philosopher from Canada. I could say that he comes from an angry and confused place, but that would be poisoning the well. And I could provide the link to the program as well, but if you will look to your right, there should be a list of links there. It's the Alpha and Omega one, which should take you there. So, I would like to comment and respond to the DL on Tuesday, when Dr. White was responding to the Arminian philosopher from Canada, a place that I have been to before.
Dr. James White was responding to the philosopher by using Scripture to back up his claims, while the philosopher used his "John 3:16" principle by arguing from an English word that is not found in the Greek text. So, he probably was unaware of the meaning of "John 3:16" because he was unaware of what the text in the original language actually says. Now, I don't read Greek, and I know that Dr. White does, but at least if I am going to stake an argument from a text whose original language is Greek, then you should at least take some time to understand John 3:16 by figuring out where to find the original text for yourself. But it would seem that the philosopher from Canada made an argument based on his own ignorance of the Koine Greek at the time of Jesus, who instructed his disciples to listen to his words.
What of it? I think that it would be great if students of (Christian) philosophy would take at least one year of Greek and a least one semester of a Greek literature discussion class, where they can talk about the meaning of various kinds of literature including the Holy Text. So, in addition to that, I would add texts like Plato, Homer, and Thucydides, who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War, which was about the civil war between Athens and Sparta, who were the victors because of their greater strategy and tactics than the Athenians, who were weak. So, I could construct a reading list for the Arminian philosopher from Canada, but I doubt he would be interested in reading about anything in that cold dead language that he refused to listen to.
Dr. James White was responding to the philosopher by using Scripture to back up his claims, while the philosopher used his "John 3:16" principle by arguing from an English word that is not found in the Greek text. So, he probably was unaware of the meaning of "John 3:16" because he was unaware of what the text in the original language actually says. Now, I don't read Greek, and I know that Dr. White does, but at least if I am going to stake an argument from a text whose original language is Greek, then you should at least take some time to understand John 3:16 by figuring out where to find the original text for yourself. But it would seem that the philosopher from Canada made an argument based on his own ignorance of the Koine Greek at the time of Jesus, who instructed his disciples to listen to his words.
What of it? I think that it would be great if students of (Christian) philosophy would take at least one year of Greek and a least one semester of a Greek literature discussion class, where they can talk about the meaning of various kinds of literature including the Holy Text. So, in addition to that, I would add texts like Plato, Homer, and Thucydides, who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War, which was about the civil war between Athens and Sparta, who were the victors because of their greater strategy and tactics than the Athenians, who were weak. So, I could construct a reading list for the Arminian philosopher from Canada, but I doubt he would be interested in reading about anything in that cold dead language that he refused to listen to.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Conversation
I was reading Donne earlier, but I switched over to Chaucer because I wanted to read him years ago, but Milton blocked that desire. He first wrote about the politics of the Revolution, but then returned to his first love of poetry later in his life. There was this play, a masque really, that he preformed in. Although this is speculation, he depicted two young children, who asked and gave answers to profound questions about morals, while Milton himself preformed one of his characters at court. The masque was amusing, but I wanted to find a narrative that included people of all walks of life.
So, I was reading about a Knight, who traveled around Europe seeking to defend her honor. And I also have read about the Orient, the Far East, through a book that I picked up, but then abandoned it like finding an empty house at a dead end street. If you knew that there was an empty house, and you had no reason to go inside, you would turn and walk away. Would you not? If you have searched all of its rooms and found them to be worthless, then you should leave before you become a person without any reason at all. So, I stopped reading my Japanese book, and went on from there.
Thus, if you have no business visiting a distant land, then it's best to look at your homeland. Yes, I am trying to draw a moral here. Maybe there is no moral and the point is to feel the dread of the empty house. If the knight were to visit the abandoned dwelling of my simile, where no one is around, then he would inspect everything and move on his merry way. So, would you not say then that the house is of no value, and you would also search for something more significant? So, maybe I'll stay with Chaucer, a poet that was the first to be buried in the poet's corner at Westminster Abbey in London, a city that I have no intention of visiting.
So, I was reading about a Knight, who traveled around Europe seeking to defend her honor. And I also have read about the Orient, the Far East, through a book that I picked up, but then abandoned it like finding an empty house at a dead end street. If you knew that there was an empty house, and you had no reason to go inside, you would turn and walk away. Would you not? If you have searched all of its rooms and found them to be worthless, then you should leave before you become a person without any reason at all. So, I stopped reading my Japanese book, and went on from there.
Thus, if you have no business visiting a distant land, then it's best to look at your homeland. Yes, I am trying to draw a moral here. Maybe there is no moral and the point is to feel the dread of the empty house. If the knight were to visit the abandoned dwelling of my simile, where no one is around, then he would inspect everything and move on his merry way. So, would you not say then that the house is of no value, and you would also search for something more significant? So, maybe I'll stay with Chaucer, a poet that was the first to be buried in the poet's corner at Westminster Abbey in London, a city that I have no intention of visiting.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
No Idea
The idea that you spend a whole season with one particular author seems tiresome. You must work with the material for several months without having a chance to change your current assignment. I have chosen John Donne, for example, but I have not kept up with him, since I have bought other books, which now collect dust on the stacks of other unread books. Maybe they would serve as a prop for the John Donne book that I got by mail, if I was not so committed to writing about him.
Briefly, you would like to work with your chosen material, but you have no plan as to how to make the best use of your chosen author. One way of escape is to read a biography about your chosen author. With so much info out there, you would not have any great problem finding something to read about your author of choice, unless the biographical information is not there. Otherwise, you stick to your given material, until you find something of use. Then you have a least some idea.
Briefly, you would like to work with your chosen material, but you have no plan as to how to make the best use of your chosen author. One way of escape is to read a biography about your chosen author. With so much info out there, you would not have any great problem finding something to read about your author of choice, unless the biographical information is not there. Otherwise, you stick to your given material, until you find something of use. Then you have a least some idea.
Monday, March 26, 2018
Influence against Fusion
There is the opposition between influence and fusion. These concepts will be examined within a social setting, were there are members, who feel that they are equal to each other. Let the amount of human members be a finite number, so that we would not have to take a few months to analyze the results. So there are persons, who would like themselves to be made available to the public, while there are others who would like to collaborate on projects, where they themselves feel that they are a valuable member thereof. So I understand these two concepts: influence and fusion within a sociological setting, where there is not a state of war but of peace.
First, those who strive to make their influence known among their peers, have the problem of allowing their influence to be taken from them, so that those who have been influenced are now the heirs of the one who has influenced. This problem of leaving your mark to your followers is that of feeling that you have no place left with your community because once your influence leaves you, then your followers have the final say on the topic of what you were promoting. They have the right to say if what you have been doing was right or not. This choice leaves the one who had influenced in a position of a lack of influence if what he was promoting was wrong.
Next, the question is about if what you were promoting was right or wrong. The moral question about influence is answered by looking at the amount of followers that the influencer has gained. If the influencer has gained a large following, then it would seem that what was being promoted was morally right. But what if the influencer promoted immorality and there was a large following gained by promoting perversion? Obviously, the followers have been deceived into following such an influence by allowing themselves to be influenced. So, we as those who are both influencing and influenced have the duty to discriminate between influencers.
So, in addition to the problem of influence and its moral problem there is the second concept of fusion, which I would like to take a look at now. Fusion within a social setting, where there is wide spread agreement between what sources should be followed, is how group members relate to each other when the influence process breaks. If there is a disparity between the two sides, then the process of fusion will happen. The issue about who is being influenced is no longer in question because it is clear to the critic, who seeks to repair the disparity by deeming who is worthy to be called an influence. They have seen the disparity and seek to repair it.
First, those who strive to make their influence known among their peers, have the problem of allowing their influence to be taken from them, so that those who have been influenced are now the heirs of the one who has influenced. This problem of leaving your mark to your followers is that of feeling that you have no place left with your community because once your influence leaves you, then your followers have the final say on the topic of what you were promoting. They have the right to say if what you have been doing was right or not. This choice leaves the one who had influenced in a position of a lack of influence if what he was promoting was wrong.
Next, the question is about if what you were promoting was right or wrong. The moral question about influence is answered by looking at the amount of followers that the influencer has gained. If the influencer has gained a large following, then it would seem that what was being promoted was morally right. But what if the influencer promoted immorality and there was a large following gained by promoting perversion? Obviously, the followers have been deceived into following such an influence by allowing themselves to be influenced. So, we as those who are both influencing and influenced have the duty to discriminate between influencers.
So, in addition to the problem of influence and its moral problem there is the second concept of fusion, which I would like to take a look at now. Fusion within a social setting, where there is wide spread agreement between what sources should be followed, is how group members relate to each other when the influence process breaks. If there is a disparity between the two sides, then the process of fusion will happen. The issue about who is being influenced is no longer in question because it is clear to the critic, who seeks to repair the disparity by deeming who is worthy to be called an influence. They have seen the disparity and seek to repair it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)