Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
two roads diverged
(i love robert frost, but that's all i'm going to say about that poem)
okay, listen to THIS now (in another tab). then continue. this. is. my favorite song. in the universe. i force myself to wait between listenings.
i have been praying for and pleading for an epiphany, a new awakening. it's been too long. and i think i've found it, a little.
i can't tell you what it is.
maybe that's because i don't quite know what it is....yet.
i love being cryptic. don't you? no, i know, it's awful. so annoying. i know.
i'll know by the end of the month, though, and so will you. though i'm sure it won't be as monumental to you as it will to me.
i see two roads before me (immediate roads; we're ignoring the billions of eventual possibilities, for now). and, more than ever before, i love both of the roads. so much. i am entirely too excited at the possibility of either.
and maybe the best part of it all is this: i don't have to choose. HALLELUJAH! my year has been FAR too full of choices. such hard choices. and it is oh-so-liberating to think that it's not entirely up to me this time. i am going to do everything within my power to even the scale, and then it's up to Him to decide my future. and i trust His judgment a million times over my own.
this is good news.
and it's christmas.
and i love so many people. thank you for contributing to my glorious world. i want to tell you...all....how very treasured your existence is. someday, somehow.
and i want to hear your tales of cheer. or sorrow. or hope, or longing, or passion, or humor. i want to hear your soul's song across this expanse.
life is so many things. having plans is overrated. at least for me.
this adventure is incredible. PAZOW!!!
okay, listen to THIS now (in another tab). then continue. this. is. my favorite song. in the universe. i force myself to wait between listenings.
i have been praying for and pleading for an epiphany, a new awakening. it's been too long. and i think i've found it, a little.
i can't tell you what it is.
maybe that's because i don't quite know what it is....yet.
i love being cryptic. don't you? no, i know, it's awful. so annoying. i know.
i'll know by the end of the month, though, and so will you. though i'm sure it won't be as monumental to you as it will to me.
i see two roads before me (immediate roads; we're ignoring the billions of eventual possibilities, for now). and, more than ever before, i love both of the roads. so much. i am entirely too excited at the possibility of either.
and maybe the best part of it all is this: i don't have to choose. HALLELUJAH! my year has been FAR too full of choices. such hard choices. and it is oh-so-liberating to think that it's not entirely up to me this time. i am going to do everything within my power to even the scale, and then it's up to Him to decide my future. and i trust His judgment a million times over my own.
this is good news.
and it's christmas.
and i love so many people. thank you for contributing to my glorious world. i want to tell you...all....how very treasured your existence is. someday, somehow.
and i want to hear your tales of cheer. or sorrow. or hope, or longing, or passion, or humor. i want to hear your soul's song across this expanse.
life is so many things. having plans is overrated. at least for me.
this adventure is incredible. PAZOW!!!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Words, words, words! (and a puzzle)
I have some thoughts.
One of these thoughts is about plurals.
The plural of nemesis is nemeses (nem-iss-seas). Which follows standard rules of English grammar.
But THEN, the plural of premise is premises (prem-iss-is OR prem-iss-seas), sometimes pronounced with the long E sound as well. why is this? why? is this incorrect? or just an anomaly?
Following this train of thought, what about promise? why is the plural, promises, never pronounced prom-iss-seas? Why the inconsistency? not that i mind, but....but why?
these are the things i took notes on today in linguistics, rather than taking notes on what was actually happening during the lecture.
in said class, we talk a lot about the origins of language (this IS going somewhere, i promise). The funny thing is that none of the theories we discuss even acknowledge the possibility of creationism. it's always: "when did we split from the primates and start speaking intelligibly?" "how did the hominid's brain grow enough to be able to comprehend and create language?" Dear everyone, you do know that evolution is a Theory, yes?
there are two camps on this issue: one is that (A) language is innate; we are born with the ability to use and understand language. the other is that (B) language, like any other skill (piano, tying shoes, writing), is entirely learned. Children learn to speak purely through imitation.
There's far more evidence to support claim A. Children are clearly born knowing certain things about language that they are never taught. For instance, how do we all know to say "big red balloon" rather than "red big balloon?" no one taught us this. in fact, studies have proven that "motherese" ("look, say 'doggy!'" "BALL, timmy, that's a BALL.") is completely useless. we do not need parents or anyone else to label things for us to figure out what they are. How do we know that something "out" of the box can be "near" it, but something "in" it can't? Who teaches us these things? No one. Our brains are clearly hardwired with these concepts. Read about pidgins and creoles, if you wish to know more--it's fascinating!
The POINT is, language is clearly inherent. "BUT," the psycholinguists cry, "how did it begin? when did we evolve to develop this magnificent skill?" And that is when i laugh. Because if anyone were to look at the possibility that we didn't evolve, but perhaps knew these things from the beginning, there would be no confusion. Were they to accept that maybe we came from a Father who always spoke to us, and we to him, there wouldn't be any question at all. OF COURSE it's innate. And what's more, it's eternal. No one else in class brings up these points, though. And i wonder if there are a large number of us, silently laughing at all the head-scratching scientists.
And people think religion doesn't make sense.
In other news,
can you decode these pictures? this was our in-class assignment today. we were given sentences and told to try and draw pictures of them. then we showed our pictures to other classmates and tried to figure out what they meant. very few of us succeeded. and yes, my artistic renderings may be terrible, but it's an intriguing point.
If you give up, the sentences are in the comments!
One of these thoughts is about plurals.
The plural of nemesis is nemeses (nem-iss-seas). Which follows standard rules of English grammar.
But THEN, the plural of premise is premises (prem-iss-is OR prem-iss-seas), sometimes pronounced with the long E sound as well. why is this? why? is this incorrect? or just an anomaly?
Following this train of thought, what about promise? why is the plural, promises, never pronounced prom-iss-seas? Why the inconsistency? not that i mind, but....but why?
these are the things i took notes on today in linguistics, rather than taking notes on what was actually happening during the lecture.
in said class, we talk a lot about the origins of language (this IS going somewhere, i promise). The funny thing is that none of the theories we discuss even acknowledge the possibility of creationism. it's always: "when did we split from the primates and start speaking intelligibly?" "how did the hominid's brain grow enough to be able to comprehend and create language?" Dear everyone, you do know that evolution is a Theory, yes?
there are two camps on this issue: one is that (A) language is innate; we are born with the ability to use and understand language. the other is that (B) language, like any other skill (piano, tying shoes, writing), is entirely learned. Children learn to speak purely through imitation.
There's far more evidence to support claim A. Children are clearly born knowing certain things about language that they are never taught. For instance, how do we all know to say "big red balloon" rather than "red big balloon?" no one taught us this. in fact, studies have proven that "motherese" ("look, say 'doggy!'" "BALL, timmy, that's a BALL.") is completely useless. we do not need parents or anyone else to label things for us to figure out what they are. How do we know that something "out" of the box can be "near" it, but something "in" it can't? Who teaches us these things? No one. Our brains are clearly hardwired with these concepts. Read about pidgins and creoles, if you wish to know more--it's fascinating!
The POINT is, language is clearly inherent. "BUT," the psycholinguists cry, "how did it begin? when did we evolve to develop this magnificent skill?" And that is when i laugh. Because if anyone were to look at the possibility that we didn't evolve, but perhaps knew these things from the beginning, there would be no confusion. Were they to accept that maybe we came from a Father who always spoke to us, and we to him, there wouldn't be any question at all. OF COURSE it's innate. And what's more, it's eternal. No one else in class brings up these points, though. And i wonder if there are a large number of us, silently laughing at all the head-scratching scientists.
And people think religion doesn't make sense.
In other news,
can you decode these pictures? this was our in-class assignment today. we were given sentences and told to try and draw pictures of them. then we showed our pictures to other classmates and tried to figure out what they meant. very few of us succeeded. and yes, my artistic renderings may be terrible, but it's an intriguing point.
If you give up, the sentences are in the comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)