My words, at best, will reflect reality accurately. That is the highest level that my words can attain. The noblest words are those that take reality and paint the vivid pictures so that you may understand reality by reading them. Words that appeal to our minds eye and make pictures for our imaginations that are close to reality... well I guess we can say that those words are being used to their full potential. Language is at its apex in purpose when it is representing reality best.
My words, however, are just so limited. They can merely represent. They cannot create. I can never speak things into being. I cannot speak my day into being. Oh yes, I can describe the day, and maybe do a half decent job at telling people of the way that the sunlight refracted off the neatly spun spider's web and glistened in the pale shadows. The shadows looked pale because they looked like they didn’t want to be shadows at all, but rather, given the choice would gaze at the sun all day. Get the picture?
If those words got your mind seeing colours and images then I guess I did a pretty decent job. My tool is mere text. It’s black on white. It’s empty apart from your mind. Words are the expression of reality.
What about God? When he spoke, he created. When he gave the word the heavens were made. And the craziest thing of all is that reality continues apart from our interpretation of it. It exists outside the realms of our speculation. Reality is and expression of his Word.
When I initially shared this thought with my friend, Rich van Lieshout, he asked the question: “What about Tolkien? He created Middle Earth…” Humph! Good question I guess… But Middle Earth in essence doesn’t exist. Neither does Gandolf. Neither does Voldemort. (Yes, yes, I know he’s from Harry Potter not Lord of the Rings!) He has created a separate reality that is most believable and somewhat enchanting but he has not created anything material in this dimension of reality, as we know it. And that for me is relieving, because between you and me, I wouldn’t enjoy knowing that Sméagol is real!
I could never tell you who I am going to be. I can speak to you of intent but never of finality. Yet, God has revealed himself to us in his Word. The word that is final. The word that has been spoken of things to come. When my God speaks, it is. When he commands it becomes. My words may try to represent what I find in him, but his words ultimately define me and my whole reality. His word creates. My words represent.
Man is unable to create history with his words; he can only create history with his actions one act at a time. We depend on the conversion cycle of time as it shifts life from future through the gates of the present into the past. Yet God exists outside of that. He has spoken and we were created. He has spoken too of an ending that I am a part of. It’s the historical future that includes me. It blows my mind to think that I am a part of something certain that is to come. His Word is indeed a lamp to my feet.
Saturday, 12 May 2007
Wednesday, 09 May 2007
today is another taxing day
I am frustrated.
I do not like to think that this blog is about me and my feelings... i would aim to channel what i feel (and the reasons for those feelings) into some sort of conceptual idea. If these were just stories about me and how i feel then i guess that would be pretty stupid 'cos everyone has their own batch of amazingly interesting stories that all deserve to be told and listened to... so i look beyond my frustration to a cause of it. an exploration that can help more than just myself.
im at my desk. it's now only 3 hours till i write my most formidable opponent. His name is Taxation. he scares me like you have no idea. More than i love my bath robe i despise Taxation. The fact that it is difficult should however not be the cause for frustration because with enough work I am able to understand even the most difficult elements of STC, interim dividend and all those other scary components of the course. Frustration (as an english word) should be reserved for things that really are frustrating. In other words, frustration shouldn't really be used to describe something that you haven't really tried hard to fix.
Another example quick- an easy one this time... Let's say you were reading something and you came across the word 'blague' and you didn't know what it meant... you cant then say that it is frustrating that you do not know the meaning because with sufficient effort you would be able to find it out. It's just unknown. Not frustrating.
Therefore it is not right to say that Taxation is frustrating. But I will tell you what is:
The collective thickness of my textbooks for this semester is well over the thickness of 6 Bibles put together. And their text is much smaller. And they have more numbers than the book of Numbers (squared)... hard to believe i know.
And yet I will spend hours in my varsity books trying to figure out a concept. Labouring over the parts that i don't understand. Getting to grips with key concepts. And I do it all for this life.
I glance nonchalantly across the room and notice my Bible lying there. Untouched for 4 days now... Crazy to think that I spend hours every day in my varsity books that teach me how to succeed in this world and leave The Word unattended. As if this world is 100x more important than the next. As if I'm on my head. Again. The principles I thought i knew yesterday have again been re-learnt today. The priorities I have wanted my whole life long are still skewed.
Not for lack of effort.
I am forced to concede that Christianity is a harder road that causes me more frustration than any other...
Another taxing day awaits...
I do not like to think that this blog is about me and my feelings... i would aim to channel what i feel (and the reasons for those feelings) into some sort of conceptual idea. If these were just stories about me and how i feel then i guess that would be pretty stupid 'cos everyone has their own batch of amazingly interesting stories that all deserve to be told and listened to... so i look beyond my frustration to a cause of it. an exploration that can help more than just myself.
im at my desk. it's now only 3 hours till i write my most formidable opponent. His name is Taxation. he scares me like you have no idea. More than i love my bath robe i despise Taxation. The fact that it is difficult should however not be the cause for frustration because with enough work I am able to understand even the most difficult elements of STC, interim dividend and all those other scary components of the course. Frustration (as an english word) should be reserved for things that really are frustrating. In other words, frustration shouldn't really be used to describe something that you haven't really tried hard to fix.
Another example quick- an easy one this time... Let's say you were reading something and you came across the word 'blague' and you didn't know what it meant... you cant then say that it is frustrating that you do not know the meaning because with sufficient effort you would be able to find it out. It's just unknown. Not frustrating.
Therefore it is not right to say that Taxation is frustrating. But I will tell you what is:
The collective thickness of my textbooks for this semester is well over the thickness of 6 Bibles put together. And their text is much smaller. And they have more numbers than the book of Numbers (squared)... hard to believe i know.
And yet I will spend hours in my varsity books trying to figure out a concept. Labouring over the parts that i don't understand. Getting to grips with key concepts. And I do it all for this life.
I glance nonchalantly across the room and notice my Bible lying there. Untouched for 4 days now... Crazy to think that I spend hours every day in my varsity books that teach me how to succeed in this world and leave The Word unattended. As if this world is 100x more important than the next. As if I'm on my head. Again. The principles I thought i knew yesterday have again been re-learnt today. The priorities I have wanted my whole life long are still skewed.
Not for lack of effort.
I am forced to concede that Christianity is a harder road that causes me more frustration than any other...
Another taxing day awaits...
Facebook. Myspace. One and the same really. Now obviously there has been much deliberation and debate around these two programs and I am going to give my personal viewpoint on the matter. Now while I wish that my viewpoint would be the one to end all subsequent discussion it is not what I am really hoping for. Maybe this is just my voice joining the chorus of misaligned opinions and doing nothing other than mis-aligning them some more... but here goes.
1. The difference between needing it and it needing you...
It is a good starting point I reckon. Can you live without facebook? Yes. Can facebook survive without you? No. Facebook has more of a need for humans to network than man has the need to do so. Where previously people were forced to express social longing and needs for socialisation in the immidiate world around them, people are now able to do so in an environment that is more impersonal than personal. I just wonder about the repercussions of people replacing regular social contact with virtual social contact. I can't remember the last time a stranger introduced themselves to me and asked to have coffee (presuming that it has ever even happened...) Yet in the last 2 weeks i have been asked to coffee twice by perfect strangers who found my page interesting?? How does that work? The bottom line is that we can get by fine without it. It depends on us and yet because we give it so much attention and time (point 3) we create a situation where we need it. Where we can't get by without it. Seems a bit upside down to me.
2. Is the innovation creating the need or is the need creating the innovation?...
Ah, my favourite view of technology is this: Technology must make your life easier. If it makes your life more complex and difficult then it's not serving it's purpose. Technology needs to give us time, not take it away. Technology needs to simplify not complexify. (that word just got created... it used to be that the dictionary defined the english language... but now it seems i can 'add to dictionary' ... so you will be pleased to know that complexify is now officially a word. yes, technology has made me a god... sorry for this tangent...) Technology must assist rather than hinder. I will always maintain that if the inclusion of new technology into your life steals time and energy then technology in that specific instance is not serving it's primary purpose: to make our lives easier.
And yet, i feel as though i should have a facebook. I feel excluded because i do not have one. Maybe i will miss an invitation (for the record, i love being invited for coffee..) Maybe i will miss something. I don't know what I will miss really. But I feel like it is something. And suddenly i realise that the innovation has created in me a need to have it. Surely technology is working backwards here? ... It should be that there was a need and now technology is meeting it. I have no doubt that this is how it started and that it works this way around for some and consequently I would have to concede that facebook is terrific. For those people only. For those (like me) who feel that the innovation has caused the need, i would question your attitude towards technology. Is it helping you or are you helping it?
3. How much idle time do you spend between your face and your book?
If points 1 and 2 have failed to register anything significant with you then i would like to suggest a point 3 that for me personally became the deciding factor. Time. It is precioius. I throw enough of it down the toilet already without needing any help from facebook. How much time does it take from you? If you had to invest the time that you spend there into another (dare i say, more noble) initiative would it pay more dividends? For me, subjectively speaking, the clear answer is yes.
This is more of a personal standard than anything else. It is certainly no dig at people who find valuable meaning in being connected via facebook, myspace or whatever else. If anything I am envious of the people who don't have the same struggles of hesitation that i have. Regardless, let's keep our heart where our treasure is. Let's not replace personal interaction with online chat.
Let's not reduce ourselves to virtual outlines and 'about me' explanations. The greatest treasures lie hidden, not advertised.
1. The difference between needing it and it needing you...
It is a good starting point I reckon. Can you live without facebook? Yes. Can facebook survive without you? No. Facebook has more of a need for humans to network than man has the need to do so. Where previously people were forced to express social longing and needs for socialisation in the immidiate world around them, people are now able to do so in an environment that is more impersonal than personal. I just wonder about the repercussions of people replacing regular social contact with virtual social contact. I can't remember the last time a stranger introduced themselves to me and asked to have coffee (presuming that it has ever even happened...) Yet in the last 2 weeks i have been asked to coffee twice by perfect strangers who found my page interesting?? How does that work? The bottom line is that we can get by fine without it. It depends on us and yet because we give it so much attention and time (point 3) we create a situation where we need it. Where we can't get by without it. Seems a bit upside down to me.
2. Is the innovation creating the need or is the need creating the innovation?...
Ah, my favourite view of technology is this: Technology must make your life easier. If it makes your life more complex and difficult then it's not serving it's purpose. Technology needs to give us time, not take it away. Technology needs to simplify not complexify. (that word just got created... it used to be that the dictionary defined the english language... but now it seems i can 'add to dictionary' ... so you will be pleased to know that complexify is now officially a word. yes, technology has made me a god... sorry for this tangent...) Technology must assist rather than hinder. I will always maintain that if the inclusion of new technology into your life steals time and energy then technology in that specific instance is not serving it's primary purpose: to make our lives easier.
And yet, i feel as though i should have a facebook. I feel excluded because i do not have one. Maybe i will miss an invitation (for the record, i love being invited for coffee..) Maybe i will miss something. I don't know what I will miss really. But I feel like it is something. And suddenly i realise that the innovation has created in me a need to have it. Surely technology is working backwards here? ... It should be that there was a need and now technology is meeting it. I have no doubt that this is how it started and that it works this way around for some and consequently I would have to concede that facebook is terrific. For those people only. For those (like me) who feel that the innovation has caused the need, i would question your attitude towards technology. Is it helping you or are you helping it?
3. How much idle time do you spend between your face and your book?
If points 1 and 2 have failed to register anything significant with you then i would like to suggest a point 3 that for me personally became the deciding factor. Time. It is precioius. I throw enough of it down the toilet already without needing any help from facebook. How much time does it take from you? If you had to invest the time that you spend there into another (dare i say, more noble) initiative would it pay more dividends? For me, subjectively speaking, the clear answer is yes.
This is more of a personal standard than anything else. It is certainly no dig at people who find valuable meaning in being connected via facebook, myspace or whatever else. If anything I am envious of the people who don't have the same struggles of hesitation that i have. Regardless, let's keep our heart where our treasure is. Let's not replace personal interaction with online chat.
Let's not reduce ourselves to virtual outlines and 'about me' explanations. The greatest treasures lie hidden, not advertised.
Sunday, 06 May 2007
hm. interesting
it was thursday. i had a revision class for my accounting test the next day and the class had been going well. our kind lecturer had been giving many clues and advice for the paper the next day. now for those who have non-financial brains, this isn't complicated at all, so don't be afraid to venture on.
Interest can mean one of two things. The way that we are most accustomed to using the word is for returns. If you invest R100 at an interest rate of 5% (if this is the case you should consider changing your bank) you will get R105 at the end of the year. This means you can finally buy that coke you were keen on without digging into you capital amount (the R100) ha ha! That's the first way of talking about interest.
The second way? ... interest can be spoken of in terms of ownership. If a holding company has a 57% interest in another company then it means that it owns 57% of it. Our accounting lecturer was kindly explaining to us the 50% 'benchmark' and then we worked though an example. She mentioned that the way that we know if one company is a subsidiary of another is to work out how much interest the one company has in another and if it's greater than 50% then any money invested in that asset would be termed 'investment in subsidiary'. If the interest was less than 50% then it would classify as a regular 'investment in financial assets' . And that was the moment that i probably should have left the venue. Aah. hindsight is a clear view!
6 minutes into the example i (being the attentive student that i am) worked out on the forlorn piece of paper in front of me that the interest (speaking returns now) amounted to a massive 68% on one of the firm's investments. At that point i not-so-cautiously put up my hand and smugly told the lecturer with the audience of approximately 400 people that that investment should be reclassified as 'investment in subsidiary' because it is showing returns of greater than 50%. !!!
i heard just enough sniggering to know that i was wrong on this one. badly wrong. (if you havent worked out how i was wrong then you weren't reading with your whole mind- if that is the case, get off google talk and try again). i was suddenly grateful that i had asked the question rather quietly and was sure that not everyone had heard me. It was one of those times when as you ask the question you know your answer... she was talking ownership when she explained the 50% benchmark. Not returns! You wally!
Unfortunately my lecturer has a microphone. Her voice is extremely audible- something i had always been very grateful for until now... She calmly explained to me that interest (returns) and interest (ownership) were two very different things. Now everyone was in the joke and i felt like calling myself 'brunt' for the rest of the day. And the eye-contact she maintained throughout her explanation was impeccable so that anyone wanting to see who had asked this ridiculous question was effortlessly findable. As if they wouldn't have known from the fact that I was the only tomato face sitting in the venue and from the fact that while all heads were able to tilt (or crane if you were in the front row looking backwards) mine had to remain forwards...
I normally enjoy limelight. Not this time. Hm. Interesting.
Interest can mean one of two things. The way that we are most accustomed to using the word is for returns. If you invest R100 at an interest rate of 5% (if this is the case you should consider changing your bank) you will get R105 at the end of the year. This means you can finally buy that coke you were keen on without digging into you capital amount (the R100) ha ha! That's the first way of talking about interest.
The second way? ... interest can be spoken of in terms of ownership. If a holding company has a 57% interest in another company then it means that it owns 57% of it. Our accounting lecturer was kindly explaining to us the 50% 'benchmark' and then we worked though an example. She mentioned that the way that we know if one company is a subsidiary of another is to work out how much interest the one company has in another and if it's greater than 50% then any money invested in that asset would be termed 'investment in subsidiary'. If the interest was less than 50% then it would classify as a regular 'investment in financial assets' . And that was the moment that i probably should have left the venue. Aah. hindsight is a clear view!
6 minutes into the example i (being the attentive student that i am) worked out on the forlorn piece of paper in front of me that the interest (speaking returns now) amounted to a massive 68% on one of the firm's investments. At that point i not-so-cautiously put up my hand and smugly told the lecturer with the audience of approximately 400 people that that investment should be reclassified as 'investment in subsidiary' because it is showing returns of greater than 50%. !!!
i heard just enough sniggering to know that i was wrong on this one. badly wrong. (if you havent worked out how i was wrong then you weren't reading with your whole mind- if that is the case, get off google talk and try again). i was suddenly grateful that i had asked the question rather quietly and was sure that not everyone had heard me. It was one of those times when as you ask the question you know your answer... she was talking ownership when she explained the 50% benchmark. Not returns! You wally!
Unfortunately my lecturer has a microphone. Her voice is extremely audible- something i had always been very grateful for until now... She calmly explained to me that interest (returns) and interest (ownership) were two very different things. Now everyone was in the joke and i felt like calling myself 'brunt' for the rest of the day. And the eye-contact she maintained throughout her explanation was impeccable so that anyone wanting to see who had asked this ridiculous question was effortlessly findable. As if they wouldn't have known from the fact that I was the only tomato face sitting in the venue and from the fact that while all heads were able to tilt (or crane if you were in the front row looking backwards) mine had to remain forwards...
I normally enjoy limelight. Not this time. Hm. Interesting.
an ode to my bath-robe
so tenderly does his soft toweling embrace me
his ruggedness to me being smooth
hastily i claimed him on my winter shopping spree
his warm hugs now hard to remove
call me mad, call me joseph, for being so silly
loving a robe is new for me too
it's safer than girls- he will not leave me will he?
it's safety from cold. just us two.
his ruggedness to me being smooth
hastily i claimed him on my winter shopping spree
his warm hugs now hard to remove
call me mad, call me joseph, for being so silly
loving a robe is new for me too
it's safer than girls- he will not leave me will he?
it's safety from cold. just us two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
