I blame C.S. Lewis.
Okay, that's not quite true...I just thought it'd be funnier that way. Regarding C.S. Lewis, though, I distinctly remember when it dawned on me that the whole Aslan-dying-on-an-altar-and-coming-back-to-life was basically the story of Jesus.
Now I wonder how I didn't notice that before, it is sort of a 'Well, duh' thing. In my defense, I was a child at the time, and I had grown up with Lord of the Rings, the Chronicles of Narnia, the Chronicles of Prydain (the movie 'The Black Cauldron' did a horrible mishmash of two of the stories there), Star Trek, Star Wars, and more. (C.S. Lewis's science fiction books were...a bit odd.) My brother reminded me that Dad used to read the Lord of the Rings to us - I'd almost forgotten.
In my head, I had a completely separate place for the science fiction/fantasy books and religion, and I didn't really think of them as related.
I brought that up, though, because I do think C.S. Lewis's description of Aslan's death and resurrection shaped a lot of my later thinking. Aslan had this whole bit where he talked about a deeper magic.
There are the rules we all are mostly familiar with, but some things tap into a deeper magic. In the right circumstances.
In the story that all had to do with his willing sacrifice, his innocence, and the resulting resurrection...but I think it has an element of truth to all sorts of things.
There are deeper laws at work in the world, sometimes, and doing the 'right' things often taps into them. Take martyrdom - it seems sort of backwards that people dying (for a cause) can actually spread their cause further. Yet it has happened, enough that we all know the dangers of making someone a martyr. (IMHO it's not just about dying...anybody can do that. It has to do with the way they die. I don't think Muslim terrorists, for example, are truly going to spread their beliefs with they way they go about it. Their so-called martyrdom is all tied up with murdering others at the same time. It doesn't tap into the 'deeper law' as described above, because they are hardly innocent when they are dragging unwilling victims into death with them. Part of why they're foolish idiots...albeit violent and dangerous ones.)
There are often deeper laws at work in the world around us. For example - kids and baby animals may be vulnerable and weak. Yet baby features (like big eyes) invoke protective feelings in the adults around them, giving them a power all their own. People will do all sorts of things to protect the young, in a way they wouldn't for a fellow adult.
Weakness can be a strength, and strength can be a weakness. It's just tricky, sometimes, knowing when those 'deeper laws' are in play. Going back to the whole Aslan thing, it wasn't just about dying. It was about dying as an innocent. Knowingly. Willingly.
There's a similar power at play when it comes to being vulnerable...Brene Brown's Ted talk on vulnerability brings up a lot of great points regarding that.
It's funny, though. How sometimes losing lets you win, and winning makes you lose. Consider some serious oversimplifying of historical events - but ones worth thinking about. The US losing in Vietnam may possibly have emboldened the Soviet Union to such an extent that they invaded Afghanistan...and then got bogged down in their own mess. A mess which may, somewhat, have been a reason for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Did American weakness lead to Soviet overconfidence lead to an ensuing failure later on?
I was reminded of all this because of my previous post. Not the one on certifications (which, due to costs and whatnot, I think I've got an idea of what ones I truly want). Rather, the one on keeping things in perspective. I mentioned that I had more respect for Al Gore after seeing the way he handled his loss in 2000. I'm not sure that means I'd have voted for him if he ran again. A lot can happen in an election year, after all, and it also depends somewhat on who the competition is. But his loss there might have meant more support later on, if he had chosen to run again.
Maybe. Possibly.
And, alternatively, a poor loser (or winner) can turn people away. Though that doesn't seem to have happened to Trump yet. Who knows? People are weird sometimes.
This all depends on the situation, of course. Just as game theory points out - people act different when they know they're never going to see someone again, versus situation where they know they will be dealing with the same people over a long period of time. Politics, to my mind, is mostly the latter - the players will interact with each other over the long haul, unless they screw up so terribly that they lose. (Given the rates incumbents get re-elected, you have to screw up pretty badly for that to happen.) That means political strategies should keep the long view in mind. (FYI - most of Trump's modus operandus seems tied to one-offs. His focus on getting the best of any deal might work in for one particular point in time, but seems pretty short-sighted and destructive when he's trying to make deals with the same people over a long period of time. There's a reason why 'Getting to Yes' and finding the Win/Win are important negotiating tactics.)
Okay, that's not quite true...I just thought it'd be funnier that way. Regarding C.S. Lewis, though, I distinctly remember when it dawned on me that the whole Aslan-dying-on-an-altar-and-coming-back-to-life was basically the story of Jesus.
Now I wonder how I didn't notice that before, it is sort of a 'Well, duh' thing. In my defense, I was a child at the time, and I had grown up with Lord of the Rings, the Chronicles of Narnia, the Chronicles of Prydain (the movie 'The Black Cauldron' did a horrible mishmash of two of the stories there), Star Trek, Star Wars, and more. (C.S. Lewis's science fiction books were...a bit odd.) My brother reminded me that Dad used to read the Lord of the Rings to us - I'd almost forgotten.
In my head, I had a completely separate place for the science fiction/fantasy books and religion, and I didn't really think of them as related.
I brought that up, though, because I do think C.S. Lewis's description of Aslan's death and resurrection shaped a lot of my later thinking. Aslan had this whole bit where he talked about a deeper magic.
There are the rules we all are mostly familiar with, but some things tap into a deeper magic. In the right circumstances.
In the story that all had to do with his willing sacrifice, his innocence, and the resulting resurrection...but I think it has an element of truth to all sorts of things.
There are deeper laws at work in the world, sometimes, and doing the 'right' things often taps into them. Take martyrdom - it seems sort of backwards that people dying (for a cause) can actually spread their cause further. Yet it has happened, enough that we all know the dangers of making someone a martyr. (IMHO it's not just about dying...anybody can do that. It has to do with the way they die. I don't think Muslim terrorists, for example, are truly going to spread their beliefs with they way they go about it. Their so-called martyrdom is all tied up with murdering others at the same time. It doesn't tap into the 'deeper law' as described above, because they are hardly innocent when they are dragging unwilling victims into death with them. Part of why they're foolish idiots...albeit violent and dangerous ones.)
There are often deeper laws at work in the world around us. For example - kids and baby animals may be vulnerable and weak. Yet baby features (like big eyes) invoke protective feelings in the adults around them, giving them a power all their own. People will do all sorts of things to protect the young, in a way they wouldn't for a fellow adult.
Weakness can be a strength, and strength can be a weakness. It's just tricky, sometimes, knowing when those 'deeper laws' are in play. Going back to the whole Aslan thing, it wasn't just about dying. It was about dying as an innocent. Knowingly. Willingly.
There's a similar power at play when it comes to being vulnerable...Brene Brown's Ted talk on vulnerability brings up a lot of great points regarding that.
It's funny, though. How sometimes losing lets you win, and winning makes you lose. Consider some serious oversimplifying of historical events - but ones worth thinking about. The US losing in Vietnam may possibly have emboldened the Soviet Union to such an extent that they invaded Afghanistan...and then got bogged down in their own mess. A mess which may, somewhat, have been a reason for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Did American weakness lead to Soviet overconfidence lead to an ensuing failure later on?
I was reminded of all this because of my previous post. Not the one on certifications (which, due to costs and whatnot, I think I've got an idea of what ones I truly want). Rather, the one on keeping things in perspective. I mentioned that I had more respect for Al Gore after seeing the way he handled his loss in 2000. I'm not sure that means I'd have voted for him if he ran again. A lot can happen in an election year, after all, and it also depends somewhat on who the competition is. But his loss there might have meant more support later on, if he had chosen to run again.
Maybe. Possibly.
And, alternatively, a poor loser (or winner) can turn people away. Though that doesn't seem to have happened to Trump yet. Who knows? People are weird sometimes.
This all depends on the situation, of course. Just as game theory points out - people act different when they know they're never going to see someone again, versus situation where they know they will be dealing with the same people over a long period of time. Politics, to my mind, is mostly the latter - the players will interact with each other over the long haul, unless they screw up so terribly that they lose. (Given the rates incumbents get re-elected, you have to screw up pretty badly for that to happen.) That means political strategies should keep the long view in mind. (FYI - most of Trump's modus operandus seems tied to one-offs. His focus on getting the best of any deal might work in for one particular point in time, but seems pretty short-sighted and destructive when he's trying to make deals with the same people over a long period of time. There's a reason why 'Getting to Yes' and finding the Win/Win are important negotiating tactics.)
No comments:
Post a Comment