Closing Thoughts

One day Joseph, a Masai warrior, who was walking along one of these hot, dirty African roads, met someone who shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with him, and then and there, he accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. The power of the spirit began transforming his life, and he was filled with such excitement and joy that the first thing he wanted to do was return to his own village and there share the good news to the members of his own local tribe. Joseph began going from door to door telling everyone he met about the cross, suffering, and the salvation that it offered, expecting to see their faces light up the way his had. And to his amazement, the villagers not only didn’t care, they became violent. The men of the village seized him, held him to the ground while the women beat him with strands of barbed wire. He was dragged from the village and left to die alone in the bush. Joseph somehow managed to crawl to a water hole and there, after days of passing in and out of consciousness, found the strength to get up. He wondered about the hostile reception that he had received from people he had known all his life. He decided he must have said something wrong or left something out from the story of Jesus. After rehearsing the message that he gave at first, he decided to go back and share this message again. Joseph limped into the circle of huts and began to proclaim Jesus. “He died for you so that you might find forgiveness and come to know the living God,” he pleaded. Again he was grabbed by the men of the village and held while the women beat him, reopening wounds that had just begun to heal. Once more, they dragged him unconscious from the village and left him to die. To have survived the first beating was truly remarkable. To live through the second was a miracle. Again, days later, Joseph awoke in the wilderness, bruised, scarred, determined to go back. He returned to the small village, and this time, they attacked him before he had a chance to open his mouth. As they flogged him for the third and possibly the last time, he again spoke to them of Jesus Christ, the Lord. Before he passed out, the last thing he saw was the women who were beating him began to weep. This time, he awoke in his own bed. The ones who had so severely beaten him were now trying to save his life and nurse him back to health. And the entire village came to Christ.

How Our Suffering Glorifies the Greatness of the Grace of God by John Piper (via worshipgifs)

Value v. Progress

Quite recently I wrote about how society is not getting better and just now I realized how easily that can be argued--not because it would be wrong but because of the pride society takes in itself.

There is a popular idea that is thought to be new, however it has always been the human approach to its communities: newer societies are better than the old ones (there are views, contrary to this but let us not discuss nostalgia now). It comes from the observation that new orders are set up because the old ones are mended or upgraded. But is it true?

It is, but only in the most technological sense. Society, as a means of something, as a very functional tool evolves into a better means, into something more functional. The structure enables us to do much more things and the new order, the new society can effectively react to many new issues. But it would be a folly to call the advancements good or bad.

Equality for women, the abolition of slavery and child labor, education--these are all huge steps forward but they do not necessarily fall into the category of good or bad because these things are progress and not values. Mind you that in retrospect it is always represented that old times were evil, when the oppressed suffered and died, when in fact the oppressed could sometimes be content and happy and feel satisfied--surely not because of the riches bestowed upon them but although their lives were hard it was not unavoidably a life they wished they never lived.

The difference between progress and value is not transparent because both are highly desirable. Still, they are not the same, although at times they may mix.

Progress is when something is being made. In sociological questions it may be assumed that progress is infinite, as there cannot be an ultimate society. It may be hard to accept, even so, almost impossible to accept because every step is very rewarding and needs to be served as an end in itself. So sometimes we are under the illusion that this or that change in the community will perfect the whole thing. Equality is the eventual goal and when that is achieved, we are done. However it just depicts how short-sighted we may be. Looking at history, putting ourselves in perspective, it seems like the greatest delusion to say that we would finish the work. For the people, who organized themselves into the first society, it must have seemed like agriculture is the greatest human feat, as it brings about a supply never before seen. And then the same happened with every new societal invention, its creators were so touched by their own grandeur that I imagine some of them almost cried. However, looking at those things today we just shrug and call it primitive. Even so, about agriculture we would say it is necessary for human existence but we would never take the extra step of saying agriculture is a value. Certainly it is in economic terms but it does not have a higher, abstract form. It is all about function.

In contrast with progress, value is an end. To be tender toward people, to save somebody, to sacrifice something, these can sometimes serve progress, but they are also satisfactory in themselves. And it also teaches a good lesson about the people of the past: everybody, throughout history, had the potential to live equally valuable lives or fill their lives with equal measures of value, as opposed to the social progress, which goes stage after stage.

So society does not convey an absolute value, however tempting to compliment ourselves with it. Societies can be advanced and complex and functional but goodness or badness remains in the life of the individual.

Frankenstein? You Certainly Have No Idea

A while ago I wrote a similar post about Bram Stoker’s Dracula, where I explored how we’ve gradually departed from the original concept and eventually turned the whole story inside out--the way it’s usually believed to be today.

Horror and genre fiction in general are looked upon as solely entertaining literature. It is best represented by enormous fandoms around horror stories that are really the shallow water of the stream of art--yes, I’m referring to Stephen King.

Although is it not supposed to be more? Shouldn’t horror really be more than a good fright? Obviously I ventured out to write this post because I strongly believe horror can have more profound dimensions and it should. Actually, my opinion is mainly informed by Stoker’s Dracula and Shelley’s Frankenstein (and a good portion is a result of reading Poe extensively in my teen years, as it shows in the post later).

Let me begin by explaining a bit about contemporary horror’s genesis. As a branch of literature it has very little to do with books, it is only an indirect continuation to the tradition. Today’s horror comes from a set of movies, some of which were book adaptations or remotely inspired by them. Actually one name is a recurrent theme here: Bela Lugosi, a.k.a. the king of horror--much more so than anyone would have thought. His version of Dracula has proven more enduring than the written one, so the underlying themes of Stoker’s novel, which even concerned the metaphysical at times, are lost, quite tragically. Also, the popular image of Frankenstein’s monster comes from the 1939 Rowland V. Lee movie Son of Frankenstein. The shape of the creature, its mindlessness, the castle, the assistant--every bit people associate with Frankenstein is a direct result of the movie, hardly any of which actually features in the novel.

A written genre originating from a visual one is encased in the limitations of both--what could not be visually understood won’t appear, and the same applies to the written part. It is an almost unimaginable thing but originally these horror stories barely ever showed the horror. “Why, we have that today,” the ignorant reader might say but the horror of old times was not filled with the today commonplace suspense and disgust elements.

In this post I focus on the method of Shelley in Frankenstein: Her approach was what we would today call the purist. Her novel embodies horror--the dictionary’s definition of it actually. She only ever tells as much about the monster that it exists, reluctantly adding that it’s too hideous to behold and once dropping that its hand resembles that of a mummy. The main instrument of this story is a very long line of deaths but only in the purist spirit, as well.

A prolonged prologue commences with establishing the members of an extended family. They are talented, intelligent, wealthy, charitable people, who are just the dream of the era. After individually stating about every relation how enviable and admirable they are, the monster is briefly introduced. No lightning is involved here, only the statement that Victor Frankenstein, the visionary, somehow figures out how to bestow life upon things and then, once the monster is created, he instantly regrets it and falls into a state of mental breakdown over the realization of how unhallowed his work is. The monster then lives alone for a while, gradually comprehends that he is frightening to humans and feels that he is forced into a perpetual state of solitude, which he loathes more than anything--so much so that he will burn down the entire world if necessary to get himself a companion. And that’s about it. The monster asks Frankenstein to create him a mate but as he refuses he decides to avenge him as the creator of his desperation through killing everyone he holds dear. Enter the death of all characters...

The horror is how Frankenstein watches everyone he loves being killed at the unstoppable hands of his own creation. His guilt and reflections at it are horror. He is horrified. Horrified. He--along with the invested reader--is not exactly startled, nor disgusted, but profoundly horrified.

But there’s more to this story than just being the original horror. I explored that dimension only because of the framework of today’s horrible, genre-redefining novels.

As contemporary horror tries to grasp what visually equates horror, all content is lost. Shelley operates with what Poe designated as the horror-writer’s most powerful instrument: “The death of a beautiful woman, is unquestionably the most poetical topic in the world.” In human relations the most extreme loss is that of one’s child but the loss of someone one loves tenderly comes in as a spectacular second, with a much more elevated pathos.

The reason this is preferred by Poe and a myriad of authors is that a parent-descendant relationship is a natural one, where choice has roughly no role, whereas in a romantic relationship, while having a powerful natural component, active choice is central. This is why a parent losing a child usually goes with the line: “A parent should not live to see their child die,” when a lover’s loss comes with: “They were taken from me.” So, while the first kind of death evokes the more profound pain, the second one is the more aesthetic. It is a better case of antagonism: what one actively binds themselves to, pledges to unite their identity to, is actively deprived from them by a second actor, thus their willing choice for whom they would value most highly in life is irrevocably undone.

The peak is then the death of a beautiful woman but it can only be a real peak if the beauty of that woman is fully realized. 

An interesting juxtaposition can be made here between the book’s model and the contemporary one. The book emphasizes multiple faculties, such as intelligence, a charitable nature, intuition and nobility of character, whereas today’s model is derived from the passions of the flesh. Contemporary theories favor a simplifying approach, which marks the core of all traits the sexual of a person. However, Frankenstein is a great example of how it used to be a valid action to discrete the sexual, the intellectual and the emotional. Today it would be called repression of the true motives (the sexual), since all the faculties associated with beauty are just expressions of the deeper, truer core of identity. Feminists of the past would have pointed out that the death of the beautiful woman symbolizes Shelley’s vision of the intelligent, competent woman’s fate, as she is determined to die, even by the principles of literature (or Poe). Today’s most progressive feminists, though, would confine this story to the literal body of women, however, not only a story but women, and all people, are much larger than bodies.

But Frankenstein is not the perfect novel. Whereas it succeeds at many things and has its outstanding merits, it does fail at anticipating what the reader can guess, as Frankenstein misinterprets a supposedly enigmatic line and prepares for his own death, when his soon-to-be wife is threatened. Sadly the target is so obvious that it’s impossible to believe what the protagonist believes to come next but, as I have stated before, this is a completely marginal element of the story and perhaps even Shelley didn’t want to make it a really elaborate twist...

All in all Frankenstein is the beacon of the lost genre of horror. But beside its literary quality it might also be a reminder to the readers that there used to be a way of thinking that thought it possible to abstract from the material.

a wonderful event in the life of a truly wonderful YouTuber :)

I’ve been a Christian my entire life, but wasn’t baptized as a child. That changed last night, and I feel incredibly blessed and humbled.

Winter lights on Her face

Waiting is hard but it's better than having nothing to look forward to.

Dreamless Generation

This is a generation, which is lacking perspective. Young people coming up are converted into uniformed entities, slaves of a system they don't understand and therefore they hate. Quite shocking, although true.

Without much dramatisation, I can say, that a vast majority of people I know, work jobs they never wanted. It's not neccesary because they are forced to do something they're reluctant to, simply they have no visions of their own. It's fairly disheartening to see, how young people pick careers based on a story they've heard, or what their parents did, or what pays the most or any other common reason why they, or it's customary to say: WE choose this.

First of all there's one particular thing, that needs to be clarified. Experienced (I purposefully don't say wise but more on that later) men often advise not to choose a profession based on emotions but rather on rational thinking. I'm convinced, that even YOU were told this at least once in your life and YOU must have found this to be a great advice. But it's in itself controversial. Why? Because what is called rational thinking is an emotion, named fear. Fear of bankrupcy. When you start out from what you deem to be the safest or most guaranteed way of life is only a desperate choice, trying to provide a trustworthy method to survive. You're just too afraid to move out into uncertainty. Let's stop for a moment, and think, how many people are poor because they've pursued their dreams? Well I don't know but I think less, than the ones attempting to ensure monetary stability...

Whenever you hear your successful relatives, friends, acquintances speak of how they got rich, they tell their stories and you listen with your jaw dropped. When you analyse your life and your opportunities, you found it to be hopeless to do the same thing and even if you have the guts to make the same move, it will almost certainly end in catastrophe because what works out for one, doesn't have to do the same for the other...

After numerous disappointments and probably humiliating situations, you lose your enthusiasm. And when you're the most vulnerable, the predators come: parents, friends, older friends; people, who basically think they have a brilliant piece of mind, that they could share with you to perhaps help you out of your misery (which is, by the way, self-inflicted). They tell you, how you MUST MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS. Or, TIME TO GROW UP and ACT RESPONSIBLY. But there's nothing savvy in how they try to drive you to fields you're not particularly good at and/or interested in. Yes, it may mean a respectable salary or a family house AT LAST. But it will also, most certainly mean the extermination of the potential that lies within you.

Whenever you get the advice to live by rationality and not to go for you dreams, you're being drifted away from the one and only way of real success. The one, which can provide you a nice fortune, but more importantly a SOUL. And when you truly dedicate yourself to a passion, to your vision, the money, the fear, and the lack of perspective will be gone. Not every dream leads to a million dollar contract in Hollywood but you might want to see the difference between craziness and passion; the second one can always lift you up.

Personally YOU and I are capable of doing the most amazing things. We will be the remembered writers, freedom-fighters, engineers, scientists, singers, and really anything at all. Please, let's not act with disdain toward this. Let us become the people we were born to be.

And a last word to the people with their advices about rationality: I'm not a billionaire-rock-star-secret-agent-astronaut, just a person like you. I can't say I've seen more or I've achieved more. I respect and honour you. BUT I suspect (and I might be wrong (though I'd be surprised)), that you've been disappointed, let-down. You've been to the bitter end and you try to save young souls from wrecking their lives because that's what happened to you. Or at least you think. Don't give up. You, yes YOU can still go to places you haven't dreamt of and you can be a person you'd admire. Just please, give it a second chance. And if it doesn't work out, change something in your plan and go for a third try, a fourth one and so on.If it doesn't work out try to figure out what might be against God. If nothing, your "failure" is not a problem. "Love and do what you will" /St. Augustine/.Just don't give up and don't make others give up. Believe me, this generation has a lot of potential, it just needs a little encouragement.

We are one tonight, and I'm singing it out! We are on tonight, And we are dreaming out loud...

Jon Foreman

“The Fault in our Death Stars”

So I had this idea ages ago, but I never really got started on it. Earlier this month, I finally did and it turned out great! :D So I’m saving this graphic for May 4th, but now I find out #thefaultinourdeathstars is already a thing?!?

Oh well. I guess there’s little point in keeping it from you, then…

Anyway, I was on a roll, so this also happened:

How to pretend

Pretend you're into certain things and that you're expressly good at them. Display great fondness and commitment. When questioned about it, convince everyone, that you love those certain things because they are truly the greatest of all. Go on figurative and/or literary crusades. Organise everything in your life, so it would be interconnected with tose things. Have hobbies, studies, jobs, that relate to them. Have everybody decieved: trick the world, your co-workers, your best friend, your family, EVERYBODY, including yourself. And at the end of the day, when you have to face those certain things, you'll fail. Because you can't actually do anything that you said you could.

Modern day thinking requires us to rapidly make decisions, even the ones that will determine main matters in our lives. It is not hard to be drifted away to some unknown directions, that look tempting but in fact are alien to us. I believed, that I'd be a great engineer and could set up a huge company, that'll be providing me with a grand fortune but things don't work like this. Not all of us will find what we're looking for in popular careers or good-sounding ideologies.

What I have found though, is that prayer is a highly underrated element of happiness. Wherever I might go, it can always take me home from there. Always. So just be strong enough to kneel down and bring yourself before the Father. :)