For thou shalt find it after many days

Ok, so I looked it up (see previous post), it's from Ecclesiastes 11:1-- "Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days." I think I got the idea that it had the spiritual meaning I gave below, from my mom.

Answers.com says: "This saying calls on people to believe that their good deeds will ultimately benefit them." I think that is more or less in line with what I said in my earlier post.

The New Revised Standard Version says: "Send out your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will get it back."

Casting bread upon the waters

Ok, I'll come clean-- I don't know what this phrase (from the Hebrew scriptures I believe) means. I'll have to do a search to find the reference and figure out what it really means.

But anyway, in my current bleary-eyed state, I imagine that it has something to do with recklessly and sacrificially (and messily?) spreading yourself around, in a way that might please God. I just got finished posting a request for advice on a broad technical problem I'm facing at work, to a Yahoo discussion group of my work peers. So what, right? Well, there's a messiness to making this sort of call for help, and one of my big character flaws is a distaste for messes, verging on a phobia at times.

But why should you suffer alone? Why would you imagine that 10, 15, 20 strong problem-solving brains might not come up with a better solution than your one brain by itself?

They say that we're now in an age where the primary "commodity" being traded is information. What does this really mean? I think it means that everything--business, politics, religion, science--is now converging, and merging. And believe it or not, I think that this is tied to Jesus' saying that he who seeks to preserve his life will lose it, and vice versa. And that if a seed is to multiply, it must first "fall into the ground and die".

And--I'm getting excited now-- what is it for a *soul* (or putting it another way, a *self*) to die? It is for the boundaries of that self to disappear. If information can flow freely into and out of a territory, we say that territory has a porous boundary. The self-ness of the territory expands and contracts in a dynamic, mysterious way. The self dies, is born again, then dies again-- on and on.

If there is a moment of "conversion" (and I have a hard time believing there is only one moment, but looked at from a certain angle, there may be) to a regenerated self, a self that has won the prize of "eternal life", that moment might be the first time that a fortified, cut-off, and paranoid self/city-state "surrendered" to the Other, the unknown Outsider, and risked oblivion (no-state, no-self, no-where), in the hope of-- of what?

Of perhaps coming to *know* something *larger than the current self*. The damned-- they are just those who insist on fixing the boundaries permanently, who usurp the divine prerogative of knowing the extent of the Universe of Meaning, i.e. *their* Universe. We all know the eyes of those who mistrust and fear the Outside, who defend against everyone they encounter, in a tragic attempt to protect the sovereignty of their self. And we all know the eyes of the living, because they look right into us, with joyful expectation.

You're not welcome

So I'm headed into a Wawa on the way to work today, and as I'm approaching the door I see a guy coming toward the door on his way out as fast as I'm heading in. He beats me to the door by a fraction of a second, at which point I notice that in his right hand he's holding both a newspaper and a cup of coffee, and he's got his left hand extended to push the door open. Not quite sure what to do, I just stop and let him through.

As the door is swinging open and he is about to pass by me, we have a brief conversation. It went like this:

Me: "Thanks."
Guy: "Nope."

It was odd. He did not say it with venom or with bitterness, or with a great deal of vitality. He said it clearly, a little crisply, like someone smoothly pulling a grape off of a bunch and popping it in their mouth.

I felt bad. After re-running the very short scene in my mind a few times, I came to the conclusion that he believed it must have been very clear to me that his hands were moderately full, and that I was an ass to stand there while he awkwardly held a cup of coffee and another object in one hand. He must have thought it odd that I seemed to think that he had opened the door as a gesture of politeness to me. I couldn't help but think that I had just reinforced his belief that people are selfish and inconsiderate.

And then I was bothered that I was bothered. I wanted to tell someone else what had happened, and I was embarrassed at the thought of doing that. My intention had not been bad, but... I had been in a hurry. He had been in a hurry.

Would it have been better if I had said nothing?

Blogitive

The folks at blogitive.com have an idea that I find intriguing.

You know how radio personalities sometimes read out ads during their show? They are more or less given a script, but they can also improvise a little bit, add their own touch to the ad. What I like about that is that you aren't "mainlining" a canned ad directly into your bloodstream, like you are when you watch a pre-taped TV commercial. A person is telling you something that someone asked them to tell you.

This is even more relaxed. Blogitive passes on URLs from advertisers to a blogger, and the blogger just incorporates the link into a post, with full discretion on the surrounding text. For an example, go to my friend Josh's blog, and look at his post "How thoughtful is it really to send flowers?"

Want to try it? If you have a blog that is indexed by Technorati or Google (or some other "major seach engine"-- not sure exactly what their criteria are), and has a decent little bit of traffic, Blogitive will probably accept your application. Tell them (using Contact Us) that I referred you.

Think it sucks? Tell me why...

What is so bad about advertising?

I grew up in a family, and in a social circle, that pretty much thinks advertising is bad, period. But is it really advertising that we have been reacting so strongly against, or something deeper? Isn't saying that advertising is bad like saying that dating is bad?

What I mean is, the thing has to happen. Like eating. And like eating, it is a specific, well-defined activity, and yet pretty much infinite in the variety of forms it can take.

And then... there is the subject of evangelism. From the Greek Eu(good)-angelion(message or news). I have agonized so long over the content of the "gospel of Jesus"-- yet again, it can be stated in so many ways, in so many tones of voice, motivated by so many different motivations.

I like the idea of "memes", which seems to finally be getting some popular airplay in the metaphor of "DNA". Good viruses, bad viruses... spreading effectively or ineffectively... All this comes into play when you talk about "spreading the word". It begs the question... if a message is "good" but can't seem to spread worth a damn, is it really "good" after all? Perhaps that's where eternity comes in. Hateful racist message, spreads fast, but can't be sustained, ends up feeding on itself. Message of sacrificial love, spreads slowly, but ends up "inheriting the earth"... as time tends toward eternity.

Anyway, I am going to try to spread some mundane messages in this blog, and I imagine also some less mundane messages. I just ask that you skim it all, it won't be that hard to read--I don't think. (Rachel says, or said--I'm not sure it still is there--"I guarantee you could be reading something better", when in fact her stuff is pretty good. I will assure you that it will always be worth your while--who knows, maybe it will be?)