daily life as life goes on . . .

A tidbit from Gil Langerak (thrown in at the end of a recent podcast I did with him):

“Words do not create reality.  Words can only describe reality”.

Fiction is the making of reality within a prescribed, bounded setting.  The author sets that boundary and challenges you to enter into that space.  I’ve read and watched some Science Fiction where I would love to have made the boundaries more believable.  Is that reality?  It is a construction of reality without the necessity of verification or authentication within “the world in which we live in” (a tip of the hat to some musicians from previous decades).  In this case, words do create the environment of reality.  Or are they merely describing a hoped for reality? 

When you come before a judge in court you are expected to describe what happened.  That is evidence.  Beyond that is the need to conjecture motive and to create a narrative which describes this sensibly.  Once again, words create the picture of reality.  Or are they merely describing the reality as it may have been?

OK, here’s the thing.  Our world today is not so much about whether words create or describe reality.  We are about creating words.  Someone has realized that words can create a new sense and emotion and definition related to the previous understanding of a word.  Take the word “gay” or even the interpretations of the word “Christian”.

So, take a step back before we deal with the question of words creating or describing reality.  The real question is, what do the words mean that are being used to create or describe reality?  And are both the communicator and the one being communicated to reading the same dictionary?

We used to say “one day at a time”.

I’m becoming more used to saying, “one moment at a time.”

Yesterday my calendar had a number of booked in appointments.  One was moved to next week hours before it was to happen.  Another was a mistake in inputting in the calendar – easily remedied but kind of threw me off.  The weather was foreboding so I rescheduled a meeting to Zoom instead of in person. 

I’ve added to the inconvenience of this day and age – the problem of contacting people.  For the Zoom call, I went to Slack, then to Gmail, then to cell number, . . . until I finally figured out the link to the Zoom call.  I wanted to contact another person, but again – which communication channel to use?  Interestingly I can’t remember the last time I opened the telephone white pages – the first place I would have looked a few decades ago.

Once again the old adage proves true – “Blessed are those who are flexible for they will not be bent out of shape!”

Not long ago there was a Netflix movie called “Don’t Look Up”.  An apocalypse based movie, such topics as scorn for main stream media and the immediacy of climate change are addressed.  The final scenes see an ex-evangelical young man pray a surprisingly honest prayer – whether this was a nod to God or a real entreaty is debated.

The idea for “don’t look up” comes as a space object is about to hit earth.  People can see and feel this is going to happen.  One of the leaders of the “don’t worry” group tell a large gathering of people to not look up (implication:  you might find out what’s going on).

This movie has triggered some of my own thoughts on looking up.

I’d like to propose a further thought on “looking up”.  The Christian Scriptures talk about looking up to mountains, sun, and moon, the skies above is futile.  At least as far as saving ourselves.  I imagine if we were to bring this into contemporary writing we would be told to not expect salvation from climate change or other current maladies by trusting in our mere efforts, or the efforts of a combined global system of remedial action, or even from being spiritual and calling on some ethereal being.

Rather, the scriptures talk about looking up to the creator of heaven and earth – the beyond creation.  And when it comes to knowing that creator we are reminded that God is here in our midst (I like to say that God mingles amongst us) and God has not been silent (witness the presence of Jesus as God in flesh).

I’m trying to take that physical action of looking up into account as I get up in the morning.  

I can see power poles, and steam from furnaces.  I can see airplane trails and clouds and heavenly objects.  I push to look further, beyond what my eyes can see.   I’m looking up to remind myself that God is in control.  What I see when I look down at the world around me is not a surprise to the one I look up to. 

Some days I just need a reminder!

In 1983 some friends and I put together a satirical newsletter called “Rag Mag” while doing our Master’s studies.  While the magazine was often tongue in cheek, here is one of the articles (written by one of us editors) that still rings true today.

It is amazing what people view as truth today. A large segment say truth is that which is logical. Not the least in this group is the Western Christian. How often do we begin with “it’s only logical . . . “ when we want to prove a point? As though logic were the same as truth.

Logic is an imposed system used for argumentation. You put forward various premises. Arguments coming from these premises are evaluated in the system. Harmony with the system is a sign of a good argument. Of course, today many presume that a good argument is the sing of truth.

But witness with me two important points.

Firstly, logic cannot determine truth. The original premises must be true in order for truthful extension to flow from the logical system. I listened to one man argue logically that man was basically good. Unless I faulted his premise, I was unable to logically fault his conclusions.

The system could not change wrong to right. It merely took the input and related whether the arguments from the premises could h”hold water”. One would do well to address the “what is truth?” before becoming embroiled in “logical controversy”.

Secondly, so called “logical contradictions” are often a witness to logic’s inadequacy. Tor the logical system (logic) to work everything must harmonize. By this I mean that premises cannot contradict each other. When a contradiction between two statements occurs, one must be rejected. The rejected statement is now outside logic. The general presumption therefore is that the rejected statement is false. Not necessarily so. The statement may be true but at the moment it is a “problematic premise” for which the system is unable to find a suitable category. The Incarnation, Infinite God encase in finite man, is a prime example. To be outside logic is not necessarily to be outside truth.

Can we reform logic so that it will determine truth? No, bur it can be a tool of truth. Should we reform logic’s law of non-contradiction? No, for then we effectively destroy the cornerstones of logic. Instead, let us accept that logic is limited.