A political ad came on tv recently. The candidate said something to the effect of, "Maryland students deserve a great education. I will make Maryland schools second to none."
Let's disregard, for now, the claim that people "deserve" this or that. Let's also disregard, for now, the haughty claim that this candidate is invariably destined (and, thereby, has the capacity) to drastically affect schools. As an extension of the last blog post, I want to comment on the phrase, "second to none."
Second to none means, simply, first. If my fried chicken is second to none, then based on some standard it is better than all other fried chicken. Of course, this also means that some fried chicken is worse. As soon as we develop and implement this standard and as soon as we start to judge by it, statements such as "well done" or "well attempted" are lost to "it's better/worse" or "you win/lose."
Another way to say this is that we stop caring about adverbs, and focus on adjectives.
Here's the point: making Maryland schools second to none might seem like a caring endeavor. But the fact that Maryland's schools are first means that someone else's aren't. In reality, trying to make Maryland schools first could mean trying to make other schools bad. While that is not the goal of the candidate, neither is equal education for all. Rather, winning is the goal. Maryland schools must be best in order to judge them as a success.
I'm quite serious. If we are to be steadfast in making Maryland schools first (even assuming the standard to gauge that is legit), we're also saying that Maryland kids are better and deserve more than other kids. Otherwise, it wouldn't be ok to try to make our schools first. If we say that all men are equal, we can't try to give unequal opportunities by making our tribe of schools or hospitals or courts second to none. The best we can do is to do the best we can do. And somehow I find that to be a little more motivating than making us better than Nebraska.
When a standard is judged by adjectives, one must evaluate the ends to make the judgment. The ends can only be evaluated by comparison through competitive means. But when we use adverbs to describe a standard, we are able to look at the means and the heart and the motivation of the issue/person/goal.
We don't need a loser in order that we can win. But only if we redefine winning.
How about this as a campaign line: "Maryland citizens and students are well-served by a great education. I will try to make Maryland students feel valued and make them smarter in the process."
What's your campaign line?
Awake late on a night where I have to wake up soon,
-Brody
I've been watching the X-Games a little bit recently and have been intrigued by this: competition while seeking the benefit of one's competitor.
It's like competition gone right: using yourself and the other to make progress.
In other words, me winning is not as important as having someone, anyone, completing a double 720 ollie grab super grind flip thing that's totally the rad sick nasty, brah.
And I love it.
Can this attitude carry over into other areas of life (business and politics, most notably)? It's so hard to revel in the success of another, but why is that? Well, we are all certainly insecure (when was the last time you didn't want to feel cool - by some standard?). Social Comparison Theory (wikipedia) would tell us that we find our identity in relation to others. My hypothesis is that a lot of the competitive spirit in us comes from the fact that everyday in school as we develope into our selves, our "success" is tied to our grades, and our grades are merely a measuring stick as to how we compare to our peers. Grades are a completely arbitrary standard.
We don't measure success by the means, but by the ends. I'm not sure this is ideal. One sports team practices longer and harder than another team who wins, but the losing coach still gets fired. Or, a salesman makes more calls than another who got one fortuitously large account, we look at their bottom lines to declare the former a worse salesman. I just have a hard time accepting these win/lose parameters as standards of "success." Naturally, someone HAS to win the game. Someone WILL sell more widgets. So how can an inevitable reality be used to judge someone's performance, especially when their performance does not completely affect the outcome (the best pitch in the world can still be hit as a homerun... this doesn't make the pitch bad). I'm not really sure of a better standard, per se, except that the means are important, and maybe more important than the ends.
This is another reason why art is so cool. Competition doesn't set the standard for assessing the quality of what has been created by the artist. My song can be evaluated independently of your song. Our same businesses often can't, though. And we both can't be elected to the same office.
So let's make business, politics, and sports more like art. The only way I can think of right now on how to do that is to love each other - seek the best for the other while doing your thing. Take conversation over arguments and common goals over agendas. Who knew that flipping dirt bikes in mid-air would one day be judged for style?
Thoughts?
-Brody
I have to tell you, Matthew Smith's blog is the finest I've seen. There I found this great article written by Tim Keller on musical worship during church and its role in the service. Like most polarized dichotomies, the seeker-sensitive entertainment vs. the high-church impotency is a false one. It's long, but meaty, and very interesting if you find this stuff interesting.
I recently tried to find a suitable synonym for interesting that was still somewhat benign (i.e. "intriguing" wouldn't do) and found none. Interesting.
Therefore, the one basic message that both Christians and unbelievers need to hear is the gospel of grace. It can then be applied to both groups, right on the spot and directly. Sermons which are basically moralistic will only be applicable to either Christians OR non-Christians. But Christo-centric preaching, preaching the gospel, both grows believers and challenges non-believers. If the Sunday service and sermon aim primarily at evangelism, it will bore the saints. If they aim primarily at education, they’ll bore and confuse unbelievers. If they aim at praising the God who saves by grace they’ll both instruct insiders and challenge outsiders.
Your comments are welcome.
Awake on what will be a busy afternoon,
-Brody
E Unum Pluribus.
Imagine you are staring at a coin, like right at Abe Lincoln's dome piece. What shape is the coin? A circle, right?
Now turn the coin 90 degrees on its axis (so the dome piece is facing a wall parallel to the direction you are facing). What shape is the coin? A line, right?
Yet it is the same coin.
I'm learning to not get all bent out of shape when people see truth in a different way than I do. If I start to presume I am exclusively right (and I see the coin as a circle), then I'm missing out on learning from someone the beauty of seeing a coin as a straight line.
We can't experience everything, so the best way to learn and grow and learn more (about) truth is to devise means to clearly communicate with those we trust. I need to stop trying to convince people of what my reality says is real. It's just as distorted and steeped in experience as anyone else's.
Rather, my voice needs to be one in a collaborative effort to figure out this joyously amazing f'ed up redeemed sinful beautiful life. There is absolute truth, but my eyes can only see so much of it, and my mouth can only express even less of it. If I can give and receive love (which is damn hard, by the way), live humbly, and resist my fears (mainly of not being right), there might be hope that I can build a community that reflects a more holistic view of truth than what I know. Thus, this larger truth becomes bigger an more relative to a more diverse audience since it is perceived an reflected in more ways than I could ever reckon.
We are a body. We are a band. I can't drum and play guitar at the same time. Put us together and the music might be good.
The pundits of "absolute truth" should realize that in their attempts to glorify truth, they limit its scope and impact by assuming that one person can know it fully; or, they assume that someone who might not see it the same way is wrong. Truth know no lines or boundaries except those which it draws for itself, and we have no right to say that truth is a circle and dismiss those who see the same truth as a straight line. It is not ours to judge. It is not ours to judge.
There is absolute truth. We are not it. Therefore we can't know it fully. This, thereby, demands humility on our quest to learn more of it and bring others to see it. Unum > Pluribus.
Feel free to send me your thoughts!
-Brody
