Isqua Istari

“Honor your father and Mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God will gives you.” Exodus 20:12
“Render what is due to them: tax to whom tax, custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” Romans 13:7
“Honor the Lord from your wealth, and from the first of all you produce; so your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new wine.” Proverbs 3:9-10

 Looking up some definitions of honor, It appears that the word implies good faith in the uprightness of a person’s dealings.  This throws the preceeding verses into a surreal light.  Of the three, only the Lord is really worthy of honor, but we are told to honor our parents and governors as well.  Parents would be the first to admit that they have little claim to honor.  Politicians would claim it, but have far less purchase than parents.  God claims and deserves honor always, but recieves perhaps as rarely as the former.

Perhaps though, they really do deserve honor after all.  Our parents (although not spotless) are often more honest and fair than their children.  Our rulers (although the ruled perhaps can not see it) are often motivated by noble intentions and achieve much more than we give them credit for (under difficult conditions which we do not percieve).  I leave the praise of God’s honesty, fairness, nobility, and integrity as an excercise for the reader.

On the more practical side, honoring parents, presidents, and providence is only good sense.  Really, what are you going to do?  Pout?  If we credit them with more than is deserved, we are kind (and enrich our relationships with those in power over us).  If we credit them with less, we are ungrateful (and endanger our lives).  Some day we will out grow our parents, but our honor of them will innure us to honoring rulers.  Some day, the rulers will fall… all but One that is.  The One ruler, TO RULE THEM ALL!

Prepare well, for honor does not come naturally to creatures such as we.

I was working on an AutoCAD drawing at work, and started looking around for geometric solutions for tangent circles (despite what one might expect, AutoCAD can’t do everything).  Next thing I know, I’m looking at proofs for inversion geometry.  Check out this fantastic site for some great geometric demonstrations.  I was particularly impressed with the inversion geometry, as soon as I realized that it is a general mathematical solution for reflected images on curved surfaces, as well as a geometric transformation for difficult geometric proofs.  He makes extensive use of the Geometer’s Sketchpad which you may want to look into as well if you’re interested in geometry.  Of course, if you’re really interested in geometry, or just don’t like shelling out money, get KSEG for free!

Most of you probably know that the “global war on terror” is also called the “global war on extremism.” In addition, Condoleeza Rice mentioned in her talks in Lebanon not long ago that she was seeking a way to ensure that the Lebanese could “defend themselves against extremism.” This makes me wonder… what’s so wrong with extremism?

In general, I do not consider myself an “extreme” person. I take the Scriptures and common sayings about “moderation in all things” to heart. I recognize, however, that I believe many things that are considered extreme. I believe in a God, and that my God is the only God and the only path to salvation. I believe many conservative things about how we should behave, and try to live by them. I believe that there is Good and Evil, and an absolute source of these axioms. I would die for my God. These beliefs used to be commonplace in our country, but now they are considered Extreme: more so even than the “X-games” and reality-TV, and right up there with mass murder, genocide, and the world’s new favorite enemy, “terrorism.”

Now, I can recognize a good catch phrase when I see one. The “War on Terror” clearly existed to make people get behind the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it had a reasonably defined (if broad) target: terrorists, specifically terrorists who strike at the US, and even more specifically Muslim terrorists who strike at the US. However, the public lost interest in hating terrorists, so in an effort to make the war even more “appealing” to the public, our country now wages the Global War on Extremism. This concerns me, somewhat.

If “terror” is a broad target for a war, “extremism” is even more so, and dangerously so. Now the war could feasibly target any group of extremists. Ms. Rice herself insinuated that the Israeli government are extremists threatening the well being of Lebanese citizens, expanding the “extreme” category to include not just non-Muslims, but non-terrorists, and in fact a sovreign nation commonly recognized as an ally of the more “civilized” countries in the UN. Now, most people would probably laugh at the idea of Israel becoming a military target of the US, but if they can be classified as “extremists,” what’s to keep them from being enough of an annoyance that they become a target of our War on Extremism? And, going further down that road, what’s to stop groups of people who act “outside of the nation’s best interest” in the US from becoming targets? Who decides what’s extreme enough to be a target in our war? How long is it until “fundamentalist Christians” who believe in terrible things like monogamy and monotheism become targets?

And really, what’s so wrong with extremism, anyways?

I have long wondered what really divides preference from imperative. How do we distinguish between needs and desires? Why are morals so often at apparent odds with economics, or pragmatism? Even more importantly, do excellence and beauty embody what is really important? If not, I’d better find a new guiding principle. If so why don’t I espouse my views to others more forcefully?

The answer is of course, (and I kind of feel silly saying this) that in the end, morality, economics, excellence, preference, and desire are all just synonyms. If one extends the view to eternity, and one’s knowledge to omniscience, they are all talking about The Good.

Everyone wants what they think is good for them (desire). They develop their desires based on experience (preference), and embody their ideals in their views of excellence. Economics seeks to achieve these goals with the minimum cost (more broadly described as “the least pain”). Finally, what economics seeks, morality claims to provide, that is, the best way to obtain what everyone desires.

Clearly this is an idealistic portrait, and the extent to which anyone adequately follows their moral or logical imperatives (consciously or otherwise) is dubious. Nevertheless, if we begin dealing with eternity and perfection (what we all are looking forward to, I trust…) these all combine. Indeed, even in our temporal and ignorant existence, there is fundamentally only the Good and the Evil (Once you believe that we live forever that is). The beautiful, and the grotesque. The excellent, worthy of praise and useful in everything, and the garbage, “useful only for consuming resources.”

Will you help me take out the garbage?