A Blameless Person?

Is it possible for a man to live on earth with no sin? Surely not, or so say many modern Christians.

Genesis 6:9 reads:

Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless man living in the region at that time, and he walked in close fellowship with God.

How is that possible? After all, Romans 3:23 tells us that

every single person has sinned and fallen short of God's glorious standards.

I see a contradiction between these two verses. "To sin" means "to miss the mark." It was originally a term in archery to refer to the act of an arrow missing its target. In this context, it refers to falling short of the standards set. Logically, then, if some person "missed the mark," he would be with blame, and any person who is blameless must be without sin. It is quite clear, then, that one of these two verse must be wrong, thereby negating sola scriptura. That leaves two possibilities to reconcile the Bible:

1. Noah was not blameless. This is not likely, because it quite clearly states that he was blameless, without sin. Also, his story was written by a third party who has no motive to lie.
2. Paul was wrong. This is fairly likely. After all, Paul was a man attempting to justify his own shortcomings. There is indeed a motive to stretch the truth.

Many churches teach that Jesus is the only perfect person, but their own book contradicts them. This does not mean Jesus' life was insignificant, but it does indicate that many teachings about him need to be reevaluated.

Another proof that Noah was a sinless man living after the Fall is his apparent close fellowship with God. Allegedly, God abhors sin and cannot be in its presence. However, Noah fellowshipped and walked with God, therefore he must have lived without sin.

Noah was not the only sinless person in the Bible apart from Jesus, either. In fact, the Old Testament is riddled with perfection. Enoch and Job are just two other examples to speak of...

How would you reconcile these seemingly opposing verses?

Natural Talent

You know, I'm a little bit tired of all the quotes I'm hearing along the lines of "all that matters is if you try. If you try, you will succeed. Period." Honestly, I'm not sure I completely agree with that.

Sure, dedication is good. Don't misconstrue my words.However, I feel that there is an undue emphasis placed on determination and perseverance.Sometimes, you need skill. Sometimes, you need talent. I say this, because I know some people are getting the idea that skill and ability (and, therefore, preparation) are meaningless.

I walk a fine line now. Doubtless, there are some readers who feel I hit the nail on the head, but there are likely others who feel like I am telling them not to try. That is quite the opposite of what I wish to convey. The emphasis placed on perseverance is often inside the proverbial ring. How often do we hear - really hear - about the dedication oustide the ring? We generally see it in the movies, but people have a way of blocking out what movies tell us. But think about who the most famous "dedicated" people, real or fictional, are. Who came to your mind? Rocky? Stephen Hawking?

Let's look at Stephen Hawking. Yes, he has ALS, which is a severe setback, and, yes, he did persevere through that. However, much of his dedication and perseverance was unrelated to his disease. He was born intelligent, and he cultivated his intelligence throughout his childhood, long before he became paralyzed.

I highly doubt the average Joe, stricken with ALS, would suddenly become a genius.

The notable exception to the "preparation breeds success" maxim is Harry Potter, and J.K. Rowling might be to blame. He was the Chosen One, yes, but did he take anyone up on the offer? Well, he became successful, or, at least, we attribute successful deeds to him. But what did he do? Take the first movie, for instance. How did Harry, Ron, and Hermione reach the end? Ron played the chess match; Hermione solved the subsequent puzzle. What was Harry's job? He went to the final room, where Professor Quirrell nearly killed him. That is the result of poor preparation and an overconfidence in one's own natural abilities - perseverance inside the ring. The only thing that saved Harry's life was a recurring series of lucky incidents in which every good wizard in the hemisphere suddenly realized that he needed help and came to his rescue.

Salt

What do we use salt for? Flavor? Why do we find it flavorful? Because it is familiar. In the past, salt was used for preservation, not flavor. In fact, salt was used for preservation until quite recently. Which means that its function during the Biblical was preservation, not seasoning.

Interesting.

This imparts a completely different meaning to Mark 9:50, which reads:

'Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.' (NIV)

The New Living Translation specifically says salt is good for 'seasoning,' but I attribute that to translation error. However, the second part of the verse is much clearer. It says to have the qualities of salt, being at peace with one another.

How can the quality of salt in yourself create peace? What does this salt represent?

If it represents preservation, then it must be preserving something. Jesus often spoke of faith in relation to peace and love. Because these things are seen as central to Jesus' teachings, these are likely what must be preserved. So, Jesus says that faith must be 'preserved' by 'salt.' Simple, right? Obviously, it refers to doctrine.

But the second part of the verse asks how salt can be made salty again if it loses its saltiness. Of course, it cannot be made salty again, and must be thrown out into the streets. The salt has to be replaced. If our doctrine no longer works for us, if it loses its saltiness, it must be cast out and remade in order to preserve our faith.

This would also explain why large religious organizations rise, fall, and are forgotten. A specific interpretation of God (as a Father, a Mother, a King, or a Queen) serves a specific purpose, but what happens when that purpose has been completed and the interpretation is no longer necessary? It must be remade in the furnace. This is not heretical, if you remember that these are simply 'metaphors.'

Duality

Wave-particle duality is a scientific phenomenon in which light - and even matter - can be demonstrated to have either the properties of a wave or those of a particle, depending on the experiment a scientist performs. In certain circumstances, a single atom can be shown to be spread out over a vast area (like a field of energy), but, under different conditions, the same atom can be shown as a compressed packet of matter (the conventional observation).

This observation is fundamental to quantum theory, but it is applicable as symbolism far beyond the realm of physics. Many will warn against the use of quantum physics to promote 'mysticism,' so allow me to preface my words with a disclaimer: all references to the spirit and its relations with quantum theory are to be viewed as metaphorical, not literal.

When performing a certain experiment, scientists spread the same atom in two different locations, 'boxes.' They know this, because they can continue the experiment in such a way that the atom appears in a way that only a wave, as multipresent, could appear. However, if they do not continue the experiment and, instead, peer inside the boxes, they find that the atom is only one. The atom has collapsed from a wave state to a particle state. This probably sounds confusing, but this confusion is a good thing. Neils Bohr said, 'If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.'

If wave-particle duality is correct (which it, indeed, is), it means our entire existence is the coexistence of two inherently incompatible ideas. Think about it. This is no different than saying x equals two, but it does not equal two because it equals thirteen, but it does not equal thirteen because it equals two, and so on ad infinitum. Our life is thus a contradiction. This concept is representational (symbolic) of God. God is spread out (like a vast energy (similar to the Force or many ideas in pantheism) but, at the same time, is also a compressed 'lump' capable of conscious thought and will (the traditional concept of God). Just as with light and matter, it all depends on how we look at It.

I propose these two conceptions of God as pandio (the former idea) and centradio (the latter idea).

The fact that God can be seen as both incompatible ideas simultaneously reinforces the idea that God is transcedent, something incomprehensible to the human mind. If I look at God as pandio, and you look at God as centradio, we are not worshiping different Gods. The only difference between our beliefs is that I choose to focus my thoughts on one aspect of God (the 'lamb'), and you choose to focus your thoughts on another equally true aspect of God (the 'lion'). After all, has not God acted as both a lamb and a lion (in addition to many other personae) throughout history?

Meditation

I am going to start by making an excuse - no, an explanation (an excuse implies I did no wrong). My absence has been a result of a pursuit in other activities. Reading three books at one time is an amazing time sap. Add that in with assisting a church, dancing on the weekend, etc., and you suddenly have little time to blog. Then, when you do have time to make an entry, it become remarkably easy to think of a reason why you cannot. With that said, I have returned; I will try to remain active this time. Senior year is starting soon, though, and college applications will take some time.

Well, almost two weeks ago (the Friday before last), all the VBS volunteers (myself included) went to the organizer's house. It was the last day of VBS, so we were relaxing, playing volleyball, and so forth. At one point, all of us were sitting in the living room. Understand, I was sitting amongst a group of Southern Baptists - the only one who does not believe in sola scriptura. I cannot remember what we were discussing, but one of the workers said this:

'I love to sit outside at night and look at the stars and think about the universe. I know that's considered - like - meditation...'

And I immediately thought to myself (I refrained from saying anything to her, because I was not exactly among friends, though I desperately wanted to): 'So? What's wrong with meditation?'

I realized something that day. My own theology has taken me so far away from my starting point that, from a surface glimpse, I am almost unrecognizable. Many Christians - many theists in general - do not understand what meditation is.

The word 'meditation' comes from the prefix 'med-' in Indo-European languages, which meant 'to measure.' In other words, it means to weigh your convictions and feelings, to discard the bad and cultivate the good. It is simply a process of self-betterment. Did not God say in the Bible that He would do the same thing? Matthew 7:19 says, 'So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire.' Similarly, John 15:2 says that 'He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn't produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more.' This is simply symbolism to refer to a process of self-improvement, the same process that is attempted during meditation.

Meditation was described in "Meditation, melatonin and breast/prostate cance: hypothesis and preliminary data" (Medical Hypotheses) as 'self regulation of attention, in the service of self-inquiry, in the here and now.' It is simply a process of self-examination. For example, the definition of yoga, a form of meditation, is 'a yoking of one's mind.' Some forms of meditation are so effective that the monks actually become smarter and healthier.

More on that can be found here: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/06/10/want-a-bigger-stronger-brain-start-meditating/

In Buddhism, there is a story the the first Buddha gave an entirely silent sermon. He sat on the hillside, with all his disciples in front of him. He silently held up a flower, saying nothing. The entire group sat there for a long time without a word being uttered. After awhile, one of the monks began to smile. He is said to have been the only one to understand the meaning of the sermon. He achieved a sense of 'oneness' with the world and with God. He felt connected and recognized the beauty in the simplicity of a flower, something we often today take for granted.

Taking this to heart, many Quakers' favorite form of worship is known as 'communal silent prayer,' which is an attempt to reach God's essence and attain a sense of closeness with Him.

If my memory serves correctly, she continued the description of watching the stars with '...but it's so relaxing.'

Exactly.

Where did this all start?

I was wondering where my religious views started. When did I begin the view that 'all religions are metaphors of the same truth?'

As I look back, I feel like the scientist trying to determine the beginning of the universe - I can get closer and closer to the start, but never actually reach it. So far, it seems as if I just woke up one day and said, 'Oh, all religions are metaphors of a supreme reality.' Obviously, that is not how it began, but it might as well be. As Napoleon said, 'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'

That reminds me of the riddle, 'If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound,' and the more perplexing question, 'If someone is born and dies without ever meeting any life form, did he ever exist in the first place?' Logically, we would say yes...but how would we know?

So, I have to wonder, did my thoughts ever really have a beginning, or have I always known, deep down, that this was the truth?

The closest I have come to the beginning was whilst reading Black, by Ted Dekker. It had a quote in it that I still find explains my thoughts nearly perfectly:

'Is the Creator a lamb or a lion?...Some would say that the Creator is a lamb. Some would say he's a lion. Some would say both. The fact is, he is neither a lamb nor a lion. These are fiction. Metaphors. Yet the Creator is both a lamb and a lion. These are both truths...Neither changes the Creator...Only the way we think of him.'

I read that, and it supported my viewpoints. I think I knew before that time, but it confirmed my thoughts on the matter.

Actions

(see the YouTube version of this post here)

There are only two kinds of acts in the world - innovation and integration. One builds the building, the other keeps the integrity of that building.

Do you not believe me? What am I doing now? I am both integrating (bringing outside knowledge into a single discourse) and innovating (applying that knowledge in a brand new way). What are you doing? You are integrating (bringing in knowledge from my blog, an outside source) and probably innovating at the same time (applying this thinking in new ways yourself). Every action is a mix between these two fundamental acts. For example, take a look at the economy.

In the creation of a product, there are four main actions, two innovations and two integrations. The order they occur is: (1) an innovation, (2) an integration, (3) an innovation, and (4) an integration. This is the relentless march of progress.

Allow me to elaborate:

1: Innovation - A researcher or scientist studies information and discovers new things about the universe.

2: Integration - A designer takes the data from one or more scientists and combine them into an idea. In some cases, the first two actions are performed by one person.

3: Innovation - A manufacturer then makes the idea work. He forms a product out of the design. He might also be called a programmer, if the product is a service of some kind.

4: Integration - Another designer takes the various products or services and,

a) in the case of a product, compares products via cost-benefit analysis to determine the best choice or implements them in one product (thereby being an innovator, as well).

b) in the case of a service, seamlessly links multiple services so that they work together.

Here are some examples:

Einstein was an innovator by creating new concepts of the world.

Facebook and Twitter are innovations by the creation of new services.

TweetDeck is an integration, linking Facebook and Twitter so that they work on one convenient client.

The iPhone is both an innovation (a brand new phone) and an integration (bringing in outside concepts, such as mp3 players, applications, internet, etc., so that they work on one 'convenient' product).

God looks down and thinks...

What does God think when it looks down at humanity? Is God pleased, displeased, or simply apathetic. Has it abandoned all hope for humanity at this point and simply no longer cares?

As I was pondering this, I thought of these words. This is what I imagine God thinking when it looks at humanity:

'I look down upon my kingdom gravely. They all see me, but none understand me. They do not even see each other. My creation has not realized its potential. Perhaps, it never will. Humans plow through their lives, never seeing, like clockwork. Go here, do this, return home. Repeat. They are no more than the machines they create. Oh, the things I would do differently if I tried again. Maybe they are not beyond saving. But how can we wake them up? Through a bright, blinding light. And where will we find such a light? In those that see and understand.'

I think God is sorely disappointed in humanity, but I do not think it has given up hope. If there is even one person left that understands, God will not give up. Such was the case with the Ark (Noah was saved) and the burning of Sodom (Lot was saved). Such is the case now, I think.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

A balanced lifestyle

A balanced lifestyle is one of the most important things you can do in being healthy. Work? Yes, but do not overdo it. If you work too much, you become stressed, which is extremely bad for you health. Play? Yes, but if you play too much, you will not have the financial stability to support yourself or your family, so do not overdo it. These two things working together in harmony make for a financially stable and stress free lifestyle.

Also, a glass of wine can be good for the same reason: it relieves stress. However, too much alcohol and you end up poisoning yourself. Thus, once again, moderation. Also, as a warning, alcohol taken before the brain fully matures will stunt brain growth.

This was one of the core teaching of the Buddha - everything in moderation.

So, I would give the following advice (passed down through my family):

Finish your work first, then go and enjoy the day without guilt.

This alone will do much in the way of longevity by merely eliminating much of your stress.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

The consent of the governed

I figure that it is now time to bring my attention to the Iran election.

First of all, I would like to point out this interesting article: Iran Protests: Twitter, the Medium of the Movement.

Second, let me summarize my argument. Governmental power rests on the consent of the governed. There is not a thing that can be done to change this. Every society rests on this key principle of democracy, even monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships. If the people disagree and refuse to submit, what can a leader do? The military will not enforce his will, because they disagree; the citizens will not obey his will, because they disagree. This is an inerrant 'law' of society.

Thus, if the people of Iran refuse to submit to the will of their leader (whether the election was faked or not), then he is incapable of leading his nation. Election results mean nothing without the cooperation of the people. If they refuse to listen, a new leader will rise up and remain in power until he is disliked and ousted.

This, again, returns to circumstance control. We are in charge. If we do not like something, we have within our grasp the power to change it. What we are seeing now is an expression of that power by the Iranian people.

How do I think it will turn out? I do not know. However, the majority will rule, whether the majority says the election was fair or unfair. No amount of military intervention can change the mind of a dedicated people. They will get what they want, and the end result will be a more stable Iran; although, that 'stable Iran' could be more or less dangerous to the surrounding nations, depending on the will of the majority.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

Why God transcends words

I have mentioned it before, but I never elaborated on the subject. God transcends words. Religion is an attempt to describe the indescribable with a series of metaphors. These metaphors have become so complex and so vast that many no longer recognize them as merely metaphors and have begun to view their brethren as strangers.

It is like this:

You are a child, and you wish to reach the cereal box at the top of the refrigerator. The cereal box is God. Religion is a chair. You can use the chair to reach the cereal, and, indeed, you need to when you are younger, because you are not yet tall enough to reach the top of the refrigerator on your own. However, as you grow older, you will become tall enough to reach the box of cereal without the assistance of the chair. Yet, despite that, some insist on using the chair even after they grow up. This type of thinking only serves to stunt your spiritual growth. You do not become taller, stronger, or smarter, in a spiritual sense, when you continue to use these 'crutches.'

God is a spiritual being. We are spiritual beings exiled and trapped in physical bondage (our bodies). We, right now, speak only with our physical bodies in a physical language. Because our physical bodies have never experienced God or perfection, they obviously cannot express God in physical words. Thus, God is indescribable with words...

...until we break free from physical chains and learn to speak in a spiritual language (likely not anything remotely similar to a physical language, which consists of utter grunts and syllables).

While the metaphors we use help us to understand what God is, let us not get carried away with them. We need to remember that they are, in fact, only metaphors.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

Consciousness

(see the YouTube version here)

Greetings,

Consciousness is a process. It is something we do, not who we are. So, do not be afraid for your beliefs when a scientist says, 'We are close to uncovering the secret of consciousness.' Instead, think to yourself, 'Okay, so you've found the apple that falls from the tree, but have you found the gravity that causes the apple to fall?' We stimulate the consciousness to do specific things; that is how we interact with the world. Naturally, we do not have to use our consciousness; we can set our bodies to act on autopilot. We only respond with our instincts. We do not really hear or retain anything that is said to us. We all have periodic moments in which we are not 'conscious;' when we are only reacting, not causing the world to react to us.

This all goes back to taking control of your circumstances. When you are not conscious, you are a victim of your cirumstances. You do 'x,' because of 'y.' Instead, you should do 'x', to cause 'y.' You control your circumstances, if you are conscious.

Our ultimate goal, then, is to become conscious all the time. Right now, how often are you conscious throughout the day? Four hours? Three hours? Less? Increase it each day. Try to be conscious for four hours and ten minutes, then be conscious for four hours and twenty minutes the next day, and so on. Always be bettering yourself, not in the sense of necessarily having more money or stuff (because these things are chains that make it harder for us to become conscious), but in the sense that we realize we can change our situations. It is enough to know that we can do it.

Take, for instance, martial training - learning to fight. You do not learn to fight in the hopes of fighting with someone in a life or death situation, but to know that if we got into that situation, we would be prepared, ready. That is our goal in this 'taking charge' training.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

Unhappiness

(see the YouTube version here)

Greetings,

A friend of mine asked a question:

'What would you say to someone that is addicted to drugs and wants to kill himself?'

I had to think about it for a moment. Not because I think the person might be right, but because the person might think he is right.

So, the first step is for the person to realize that our situation is a product of our attitude. If I say, 'I am unhappy. I am addicted to drugs,' then I open my life up to that. I, essentially, open the gate up and shout for all the criminals to enter the city. I have to prevent that from happening. I have to lock the gate; I have to say, 'I am happy. I am not addicted to drugs. I love life.' Understand, this is not self-denial. I would not be denying my circumstances, but rather closing the gate, not allowing myself to be affected by my circumstances.

It is like this: you are rolling a dice with the intent of getting a six. You roll, and you get a five. You have two options; you can either live with the five and give up, or you can roll again and try for the six until you get it. That is what you have to do. You do not say, 'I will be happy when...' Rather, you say it in the present, as though it has already happened. 'I am happy, because I am successful, and I am not addicted to drugs.' Do not let yourself become a victim of your circumstances. Too often, people are not in control of their lives, when they should be.

You are in control of your circumstances. If you are stuck in a rut, change it. Our circumstances are the result of our perception[1], and we are not bound by them. The rut is an illusion. It does not exist.

So, I would ask, 'Who is in control of your life, you or your circumstances?'

[1] taken from YouTube - nowupgradingmind

Fine Again - Seether

Greetings,

I was listening to music (as I am apt to do throughout the day), and "Fine Again" by Seether came up. The lyrics of this song really seemed to speak to me. The part I am specifically interested in is:

'It seems like every day's the same

and I'm left to discover on my own

It seems like everything is gray

and there's no color to behold

[...]

And I am aware now of how

everything's gonna be fine one day

[ ...] I am prepared now,

seems everyone's gonna be fine...'

The first verse shows what life is like before we wake up to it. Before we realize that we are in control. Everything is bland, very plain. We are victims of our circumstances. But when we wake up - when we become 'aware' - we realize that we are in control, we do not need to be worried about life anymore. Everything is fine right now; the song says 'one day,' but, in reality, when we become aware, everything is fine right now, we do not even need to change anything. Once again, it is a matter of how we look at life.

It is certainly something to think about. We have to realize that we are in control.

Edit:

The problem right now is that most people think, 'Well, I'll be happy as soon as I get that promotion, or that car.' That's not what life is. I am happy now.

End edit

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

Life as an energy flow

Greetings,

Life is what you make of it. If you want to be unhappy, you will be. If you want to be happy, you will be.

It's just a matter of taking charge, making the world's energy work for you.

The world is filled with energy, and this energy nourishes our spiritual side - the side responsible for our disposition. There are two types of energy: good and bad. If you fill yourself up with bad energy, you will be an angry person, but if you feel yourself up with good energy, you become a happy person.

We have all experienced moments of extreme, irrational anger - times when we did not even know why we were angry; we just were. When we are not in control of the energy we consume, we are at the mercy of the environment we live in, just as if we are not in control of what food we eat for our physical bodies, our physical health is at the mercy of what food is available. Chances are, you have noticed that when you are habitating in the country, where nature is most prevalent, you are more relaxed, happier, whereas when you are in a big city, you become stressed, angry.

This is because big cities are feeding grounds of bad energy, and nature is filled with good energy. That's why so many people, seeking spiritual growth, go to the countryside, or become nomads. They are surrounding themselves with good energy.

What they do not realize, however, is that does not actually make them more aware of the good energy; it merely eliminates (or reduces) the influence of the bad energy. They do not grow spiritually at all. Just as a flu vaccine contains some of the flu virus (enough that your body can handle) in order to make you healthier, you have to experience the bad energy to become spiritually healthier.

Whenever you converse with someone, you are exchanging energy. That is a defining characteristic of social interaction. She takes some of your energy, and you take some of hers. That is why you have to take care when choosing a partner. While you can increase your resistance to the bad energy, you cannot keep your guard up 24/7. Thus, you must choose the right person.

If the person you are talking to has good energy, then that good energy is feeding your soul. But, it does not follow that we should only associate with people that have good energy flows. Life is an infinite game, after all, so we need to keep people participating. We need to enable them, and, as Jesus said, 'Healthy people don't need doctors; sick people do.'

But, if a person has a bad energy flow, we must be very careful not to absorb it. As soon as you sense bad energy entering you, cut off the flow. This can be done while continuing the conversation. Feed him your good energy, but do not take his bad energy.

When the conversation is over (or during it, if possible), push the bad energy out of you. Think good thoughts. Surround yourself with nature. Then, imagine the good energy from your surroundings and thoughts (because thoughts are energy, and they feed your soul, whether good or bad) flowing into you and nourishing you.

I still have moments of that anger, and I doubt that will ever go away, but I am glad to say that it is conquerable - you can get rid of it as it arises. Ideally, you will conquer it sooner and sooner after its appearance, until eventually you conquer it before it arises. I'm on the path, which is a step forward.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

P.S. What do you do to get rid of anger?

Finite and infinite games

(see the video version of this post here)

Greetings,

I am reading a book titled Finite and Infinite Games, by James P. Carse. To say the least, it is quite interesting. With currently 130 pages left (out of 177), it has already given me a new view of life. Basically, life is a series of 'games' that we play. These games are either finite or infinite.

The core distinction between the two types of games is that a finite game is played with the goal of ending it, whereas an infinite game is played with the intent of continuing it. It is quite abstract, and I have to reread passages often, to make sure I understand it.

The publisher's excerpt reads:

'The rules of the finite game may not change; the rules of an infinite game must change.

Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.

Finite players are serious; infinite games are playful.

A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite players plays with strength.

A finite player consumes time; an infinite player generates time.

The finite player aims for eternal life; the infinite player aims for eternal birth.'

In other words, finite players play to win. Because they play to win, they need rules, to balance the game. These rules may not change, otherwise the balance is upset, and whatever actions taken to win might not be advantageous anymore. Their goal is to get from point A to point B before everyone else. They do not want to make point B further away, because their goal is not to make the game last longer, but to win it. Therefore, making the point further away is superfluous. Because a finite player is so concerned with 'winning,' he constantly looks for ways to complete his goal faster. Thus, if something does not further his goal, it is a waste of time. The finite player plays with the intent of surpassing everyone else, of disabling everyone else from reaching the goal. Thus, he plays 'to be powerful.' The ultimate goal of the finite player is to 'not lose.' Death is the final loss, so he seeks to prolong life as much as possible, to live longer than all other people - which is, once again, a victory, a path to power.

Infinite players, however, do not need rules, because their purpose is not to win a contest, but 'to continue the play.' Because of this, they are always extending their possibilities, increasing what they (and others) can do. They play with the purpose of initiating the actions of others (which continues the play). The more they enable others to act, the stronger they are. They do not see anything as a 'waste of time,' because they make time, essentially. They put it into their game, to enable actions. Therefore, it is inherently impossible to waste time. Finally, the infinite player always wants to try new and exciting things, to experience the world as much as possible - to expand her boundaries.

I got to thinking that the reason we have laws in the first place is because finite players exist. Finite players see life as a competition, where they need to get ahead. They will do everything in their power to get ahead, so laws are established to balance the game. If everyone was an infinite player, then laws would not be needed. Because an infinite player plays with strength, to enable others, he would automatically do what is best for civilization. The goal is not to get ahead, but to further the play.

Laws were created to make the goal of the finite players similar to that of the infinite players. Naturally, they still seek to get ahead, but the laws prevent them from doing anything to get ahead that does not 'continue the play.' They are not allowed to kill or steal, because these actions prevent another person from acting; these actions are weak.

So, if we all eventually realized that life is not about getting ahead, then the laws we have now would be unnecessary.

So, I'm curious - how do you look at life as a whole? Do you look at it as finite or infinite?

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

Introduction (video) and a brief overview

Hello again,

Let me start off by saying that today I went out and purchased a webcam for the first time to use as a supplement to this text blog. It took a little bit of time to figure out how to get it working, as well as get my headset to start working so you could actually hear what I was saying.

There are three parts to my blog:

(1) This site, where I will discuss news articles and books, etc.

(2) My YouTube channel, which will also have similar content, though not exactly the same. I will probably use this to focus more on my opinion, whereas the blog will be my review of others' opinions.

(3) My Twitter account, where I will post day-to-day activities, as well as links too short to write a blog entry about or when it is inconvenient for me to do so.

So, without further ado, I present the first video of the video blog.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

Hello world! o/

Greetings,

I think that all good blogs begin with an introduction, and all good introductions begin with a name.

Mine is Brian West.

I'll be honest - I was not enthusiastic about getting a blog. I've lost count of how many times I was told, "Get a myspace," or "Get [blog name]," etc. They just never really appealed to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love blogs. They're extremely interesting (at least when they have quality content). What I liked was the idea of the blog, not the blog itself. Think about it:

"A way that everday people can participate in the media, share their opinions, and expand their horizons and knowledge - all from the comfort of their home computer."

Is that not attractive? The problem was what it has become, at least in my society. Rather than a medium through which to exchange ideas and discuss topics in the news and elsewhere, it has become a way to expand our ego. For evidence of this, you need look no further than your (and my) facebook accounts. How many friends do you have? One hundred? Two hundred? Three hundred? I know people with six hundred friends! Now, how many of those people are you actually friends with? Maybe five. So why have the other five hundred ninety-five? It makes you feel better. You look and see all these updates and think to yourself, "Wow, everyone loves me!" There is nothing wrong with that, perse. It's when it permeates all social mediums that it becomes a problem. Facebook is only a social networking site. It's sole function is to allow for that kind of casual interaction. But that's not what blogs are for, in my opinion.

I've seen the blog posts of some of my friends. They are all one line things such as, "I'm going to the store."

Keep the Facebook stuff to Facebook, the Twitter stuff to Twitter, and the blog stuff to the blogs.

I have a Twitter account ("BrianMWest") where I will post all my short day-to-day updates. Here is where the real thinking will happen. I might not get here every day, but I can get to Twitter wherever I have cell phone service. If you are interested in the mundane activities of my life, look there. If you are interested in my thoughts and opinions on subjects, you are in the right place.

So, without further to say, I will take my leave of you for now, and I look forward to hearing from all of you, whether it be on Blogspot or Twitter.

-Brian West (Apeiros Sophos)

P.S. "Apeiros Sophos" means "Infinite Wisdom" (a paradox, I know) in Greek.