* tiny but powerful *

Huge decision to make this weekend. BLAH.

Goodbye, September.

My roommate is a sophomore. I feel old. :-P But I really like her! See, God always has me covered on the random roommate thing. :)

Plans have changed and things are crazy, so, uh, that's all for now. (My computer is still in Atherton at the moment.)

Thank you to Mike for his help tonight loading stuff into my car AND removing spiders from my closet!! YAY MIKE!

So, here I am, peering ahead at all the Craziness About To Ensue. Today I'll be packing up my stuff in Atherton and loading my car as much as it'll hold. Tomorrow I will go to church and then go directly to campus for a 12:00 meeting with the O-Show Coordinator, and after that we *might* have to set up for Parents' Dinner (I'm quite annoyed that they haven't been clear about the schedule. NSO hasn't been doing a very good job of organizing the a cappella front this year, but you don't want to get me started on that). Then, hopefully I'll manage to get my key in the midst of every a cappella person trying to get their key at the same place at the same time, and then I can start unloading stuff into Soto. I'll need to make another trip back to Atherton for the rest of my stuff, and also to clean up as I clear out my space. Then, after dinner, Testimony is having our own meeting at 7:30.

On Monday, we have rehearsal 2:00-3:30 and Freshman Convocation at 3:45 to assist the masses in singing the alma mater, and afterward we *might* have to tear down all the Convocation chairs (if we weren't one of the groups required to set up Parents' Dinner). After dinner, I'll go back to Atherton, pick up kitchen stuff from the apartment, and drive back to Castro Valley -- because on Tuesday, we're having movers move all our furniture and large boxes from the Elbridge house to the Bellingham house. (This should have happened a couple weeks ago, but we've had a million problems with all the contractors, and you don't want to get me started on that either.) So Tuesday I'll help with moving for half of the day, but I'll have to drive back to Stanford by 4:15 for rehearsal. Somewhere in there, I will buy a parking permit and get unpacked and hopefully not kill my back. At least I don't have as many meetings as I otherwise might (Jenny & co. get all that fun this year, heh). So that's me for the next few days! Call my cell if you need to reach me.

More good food for thought: Why commitments are important for growth and maturity.

I thought the last paragraph was particularly poignant:

"Think through your commitments or your lack of them. Pursue the ones you should have. Reevaluate ones you have gotten into by poor choices. Embrace ones that help you grow as a person. Join a church. Clarify your dating. Then fulfill what each of those commitments mean, even to your own hurt at times. This helps us grow and mature. If you are scared of covenants, then I think you are blocking the path of maturity for you. You cannot love every man, you have to love your husband. You cannot love the universal church until you join and love your church, particularized in a local body. You cannot love the Bible until you commit to it. You cannot submit to Jesus’ authority until you have submitted to the authority of your elders. You cannot serve humanity, until you serve someone, a real live person, the one before you, next to you. Our commitments help to shape and define us for the good. Don’t run away from them, but towards the ones that are right, good and true."

Happy Birthday, EM!

P.S. Also very cool: "Other Voices" (more people's perspectives relating to The Question of God)

PBS is airing a program that explores "The Question of God" by pitting Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis (whose characters are played by actors) in a 'debate' on the existence of an intelligent creator. The show is hosted by Dr. Armand Nicholi, a Harvard professor who teaches a class there by the same name. He sees these two figures of 20th century thought as main proponents of non-faith and faith. The program addresses "in an accessible and dramatic style, issues that preoccupy all thinking people today: What is happiness? How do we find meaning and purpose in our lives? How do we reconcile conflicting claims of love and sexuality? How do we cope with the problem of suffering and the inevitability of death?" [Thanks to Ben Yu for the info!]

I'm really bummed that I missed the first part (last night on KQED), but the second part is showing next Wednesday, Sept. 22 at 10:00pm. Let me know if you'd like to watch it with me! -- I'll try to find a guaranteed location with a TV, either on or near campus. (I'm also going to try to record the first segment when it re-airs on KQED during the wee hours of Friday morning, so if that works I'll organize a viewing of that before next Wednesday too.)

Here's an excerpt from the page that explains why Freud and Lewis were chosen as the intellectual figures for this program -- it really grabbed my attention:

Arguably, few individuals have influenced the moral fabric of contemporary Western civilization more than Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis. Scientific skepticism and religious belief — the two worldviews these men represent — form the basis of The Question of God series. The following is from the prologue to The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, by Dr. Armand Nicholi.

Why Freud & Lewis?
Whether we realize it or not, all of us possess a worldview. A few years after birth, we all gradually formulate our philosophy of life. We make one of two basic assumptions: we view the universe as a result of random events and life on this planet a matter of chance; or we assume an Intelligence beyond the universe who gives the universe order, and life meaning. So each one of us embraces some form of either Freud's secular worldview or Lewis's spiritual worldview.

Our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives. It influences how we perceive ourselves, how we relate to others, how we adjust to adversity, and what we understand to be our purpose. Our worldview helps determine our values, our ethics, and our capacity for happiness. It helps us understand where we come from, our heritage; who we are, our identity; why we exist on this planet, our purpose; what drives us, our motivation; and where we are going, our destiny.

The purpose of The Question of God — the book, television series, and Web site — is to look at human life from two diametrically opposed points of view: those of the believer and the unbeliever. We will examine several of the basic issues of life in terms of these two conflicting views.

---
[...] Lewis embraced an atheistic worldview for the first half of his life and used Freud's reasoning to defend his atheism. Lewis then rejected his atheism and became a believer. In subsequent writings, he provides cogent responses to Freud's arguments against the spiritual worldview. Wherever Freud raises an argument, Lewis attempts to answer it. Their writings possess a striking parallelism. If Freud still serves as a primary spokesman for materialism, Lewis serves as a primary spokesman for the spiritual view that Freud attacked.

Unfortunately, because Lewis trailed Freud by a generation, his responses to Freud's arguments were the last written word. Freud never had the chance to rebut. Yet if their arguments are placed side by side, a debate emerges as if they were standing at podiums in a shared room. Both thought carefully about the flaws and alternatives to their positions; each considered the other's views.

Their arguments can never prove or disprove the existence of God. Their lives, however, offer sharp commentary on the truth, believability, and utility of their views.

---
But are these worldviews merely philosophical speculations with no right or wrong answer? No. One of them begins with the basic premise that God does not exist, the other with the premise that He does. They are, therefore, mutually exclusive — if one is right, the other must be wrong. Does it really make any difference to know which one is which? Both Freud and Lewis thought so. They spent a good portion of their lives exploring these issues, repeatedly asking the question "Is it true?"

Freud argues against the existence of God. He points to the problem of suffering and he develops the psychological argument that the whole concept is nothing but a projection of a childish wish for parental protection from the vicissitudes and sufferings of human existence. He also argues against the objection of those holding the spiritual worldview that faith "is of divine origin and was given us as a revelation by a Spirit which the human spirit cannot comprehend." Freud says this "is a clear case of begging the question" and adds this comment: "The actual question raised is whether there is a divine spirit and a revelation by it, and the matter is certainly not decided by saying this question cannot be asked."

Lewis agrees with Freud that this is indeed the most important question. He writes: "Here is a door behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true or it isn't. If it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud...on record." Because so many people embrace Lewis's answer, Lewis is right: if not true, then the spiritual worldview is not only a fraud but also the cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race. And the only alternative is to follow Freud's advice to grow up and face the harsh reality that we are alone in the universe. He says we may find less consolation, but the truth, harsh as it is, will ultimately set us free from false hopes and unrealistic expectations. But if the spiritual worldview is true, then all other truth fades in significance. Nothing has more profound and more far-reaching implications for our lives.

Oh man. I just read a blog post about the Top 5 Worst Worship Songs (written by someone whom I don't actually know, but I got it from Wootae who got it from someone else), and it opens up the can of worms that I was exploring last Spring Quarter for my Music 42 research paper on CCM and contemporary worship. First, let me say that I personally like and have had a positive experience with many of the songs they're criticizing (though "Trading My Sorrows" has always annoyed me), but the whole discussion brings up some good points. There's a lot to think about and be aware of, even though I don't agree with all of it (and I've only read 1/5 of the comments). However, I feel compelled to defend the use of the word "river" (even if I dislike particular "river" songs for other reasons), because my church is NAMED "The River" -- and we have an explanation for that. Anyway, happy reading. ;)

I just found out that my housing for next year will be Soto #219. They won't tell me anything about my roommate, but at least it's nice to know which room I'll be in. I wonder if I can find out her name when I pick up my key this Sunday, or whether I'll have to wait until she actually shows up at the door. :-P

---edit---
I just remembered that, if the Soto RA's are on top of their game, my roommate's name should be on our door (or will be shortly after I arrive). Ha!

Cheddar cheese melts by conduction but not by convection. How intriguing...

San Francisco stresses me out. A lot.

Some recent reading that has been confounding the cultural/political/vocational/theological/everything-else-ical mishmash currently ailing my poor little head:

- "Who Cares About the Truth?"

- "Vote Your Conscience? Hold That Thought..." (I'd read this awhile ago, but it's interesting in light of the article above.)

- "God is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat."

- "First Class: Is it possible to raise rich kids who don't have a sense of entitlement?"

Please note that in any of the above (props to anyone who actually reads all of them), I (1) agree with some but not all of the points made, (2) may or may not agree with the underlying message conveyed, and (3) am fantastically undecided on what I actually support.

---

And something that's just amusing (you know, in the retrospective sense):

- "Study finds older boys are bad influence"

Driving back to my apartment from Stanford just now, I had to pass through a "Sobriety Checkpoint" on El Camino right before Safeway. The Menlo Park Police Department was out there with a trailer that showcased a (not recently) totaled car and a sign that said: "Don't Be Another Statistic!" All they did was ask me whether I'd had anything to drink tonight (yeah, right) and check my driver's license (the second time I had to show it tonight! Heh), and then gave me a flyer about how "Drinking And Driving Is A Deadly Combination". I was pretty amused, but I think it's good that they're doing it. Yay for them!

My first time at the Saddlerack was less yay, but I don't want to write (or think) about that too much, because my head is still mildly throbbing. At least the ringing in my ears has stopped. But don't worry, it wasn't a *totally* bad experience -- it just sort of went downhill after the first 30 minutes (during which I did actually have a good time). I think also I'm probably just hypersensitive to cultural issues right now. Maybe I'll have better luck next time (if there is a next time).

According to Chi-En's voice recognition software, "Why are you smirking at me!" = "I areas where to get me?" Hahahahaha!