As I read, I invariably mark up the book I am reading. If you likewise do that, think with me for a moment about what you are doing. You are reading the material once, then you go back and highlight the interesting or important part—that’s reading number two, which reinforces your first reading—and you do this with the idea in mind that you will someday revisit the book and at least review your original highlights because they were important to you. That will be reading number three.
I have found this practice to be very valuable for me as I study. It is also of value to me in more casual reading because it allows me to easily find and enjoy once again the highlighted material.
If we go through life and visit something that is interesting to us only once, I think we miss a great deal. I always learn something more on repeat readings. That is why religious people are encouraged to read the scriptures, for example, over and over because of the new insights that invariably come.
And the principle is shown to be sound in other areas of our life. What if we kissed our loved-one only once and let it go at that? Or what if we played golf at a good golf course only once, or took a vacation to a great get-away spot only once, or enjoyed the company of a new friend and then never saw him/her again?
I pity those who never get past a ‘first reading.’ I pity more those who never read at all. As I told my children when they were young: A person who does not read does not have much of an advantage over one who cannot read.
Reading lets you experience other ideas, other lives. Rereading keeps them with you.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Our Circumstances
I have a favorite story that I have told on a number of circumstances that I would like to share with you. I heard it from Jeffrey R. Holland nearly forty years ago during my first summer session at Brigham Young University.
Louis Agassiz, a famous scientist of the 19th Century, gave a lecture in London.
After the lecture a little old lady came up to him in the receiving line and said to him, rather resentfully and spitefully, that he spoke well because he had all the advantages in life but that the poor or average person had few of the opportunities he had to learn what he knew and that he better appreciate it.
After taking this dressing down he asked her, “And what do you do in life?”
She said she and her sister ran a boarding house and that she was the cook. He then said, “And where do you do your work?” She thought that was a stupid question and said, “In the kitchen, of course, while standing on the floor.”
“And what is the material of your floor, Ma’am?”
“Glazed brick.”
“Have you ever wondered what is a glazed brick?”
“No.”
“Hmmm. Well, here’s my card. Write me a note when you have time and tell me what is a glazed brick.”
Well, that made her mad enough to go home and do it. She consulted a dictionary and found that a glazed brick was a piece of baked clay. Realizing that wasn’t enough to send to a renowned Harvard-trained naturalist she consulted an encyclopedia and got more information. Her curiosity piqued, she next went to a brick factory and a tile maker. Then she went deeper into the library and consulted the history and geology sections to find out more about clay and clay beds. She finally decided there were over 120 different kinds of bricks and glazed tiles. She could tell Professor Agassiz that, so she wrote him a note of over thirty pages and said, “Here’s your glazed brick.”
He wrote back. “This is a fine piece of work. If you change this and that and the other, I’ll prepare it for publication and send you that which is due you from the publication.” She made the changes, thought no more of it, and was surprised when a check for $250 came for her in the mail. His attached note said, “I’ve published your piece. What was under the brick?”
She wrote back and said, “Ants.”
He wrote back: “What’s an ant?”
“She went to work and this time she was excited. She found 1825 different kinds of ants. She found that there were ants so small that you could put three to the head of a pin and still have plenty of room left over. She found that there were ants an inch long that moved in armies half a mile wide and destroyed everything in their path. She found that some ants were blind; some milked cows and shared it with other ants. She found more ants than anybody had ever found so she wrote Dr. Agassiz something of a treatise, numbering 360 pages. He published it and sent her the money and royalties, which continued to come in.”
The moral? A previously poorly educated and previously short-visioned and unchallenged boarding house keeper had discovered a new life. [With this new source of income and expertise], says Dr. Holland, “she saw the lands and places of her dreams on a little carpet of vitrified kaolin [which is what a brick is] and on the wings of flying ants that may lose their wings on the afternoon they die.” (Jeffrey R. Holland, ten-stake fireside address at Brigham Young University, June 2, 1974)
How many people who are unemployed or underemployed in today’s difficult times might be challenged to do something similar? Probably thousands.
Louis Agassiz, a famous scientist of the 19th Century, gave a lecture in London.
After the lecture a little old lady came up to him in the receiving line and said to him, rather resentfully and spitefully, that he spoke well because he had all the advantages in life but that the poor or average person had few of the opportunities he had to learn what he knew and that he better appreciate it.
After taking this dressing down he asked her, “And what do you do in life?”
She said she and her sister ran a boarding house and that she was the cook. He then said, “And where do you do your work?” She thought that was a stupid question and said, “In the kitchen, of course, while standing on the floor.”
“And what is the material of your floor, Ma’am?”
“Glazed brick.”
“Have you ever wondered what is a glazed brick?”
“No.”
“Hmmm. Well, here’s my card. Write me a note when you have time and tell me what is a glazed brick.”
Well, that made her mad enough to go home and do it. She consulted a dictionary and found that a glazed brick was a piece of baked clay. Realizing that wasn’t enough to send to a renowned Harvard-trained naturalist she consulted an encyclopedia and got more information. Her curiosity piqued, she next went to a brick factory and a tile maker. Then she went deeper into the library and consulted the history and geology sections to find out more about clay and clay beds. She finally decided there were over 120 different kinds of bricks and glazed tiles. She could tell Professor Agassiz that, so she wrote him a note of over thirty pages and said, “Here’s your glazed brick.”
He wrote back. “This is a fine piece of work. If you change this and that and the other, I’ll prepare it for publication and send you that which is due you from the publication.” She made the changes, thought no more of it, and was surprised when a check for $250 came for her in the mail. His attached note said, “I’ve published your piece. What was under the brick?”
She wrote back and said, “Ants.”
He wrote back: “What’s an ant?”
“She went to work and this time she was excited. She found 1825 different kinds of ants. She found that there were ants so small that you could put three to the head of a pin and still have plenty of room left over. She found that there were ants an inch long that moved in armies half a mile wide and destroyed everything in their path. She found that some ants were blind; some milked cows and shared it with other ants. She found more ants than anybody had ever found so she wrote Dr. Agassiz something of a treatise, numbering 360 pages. He published it and sent her the money and royalties, which continued to come in.”
The moral? A previously poorly educated and previously short-visioned and unchallenged boarding house keeper had discovered a new life. [With this new source of income and expertise], says Dr. Holland, “she saw the lands and places of her dreams on a little carpet of vitrified kaolin [which is what a brick is] and on the wings of flying ants that may lose their wings on the afternoon they die.” (Jeffrey R. Holland, ten-stake fireside address at Brigham Young University, June 2, 1974)
How many people who are unemployed or underemployed in today’s difficult times might be challenged to do something similar? Probably thousands.
Monday, February 13, 2012
An Offender for a Word
I am offended that the source for truth so many rely upon (our public media) seems to be in the business of obscuring truth by the methods they use. In an interview with a media mogul that I listened to last evening on NPR the guest candidly admitted that “we emphasize conflict” and that they “pump up” issues that can cast the issue or political candidate in a certain light to fit their corporate bias. The media, of course, piously tout their ‘fact checkers’ but the significance of the assertions they choose to check is largely a sham. They shine the spotlight on one thing to take the focus off of something else.
Take, for example, the issue the media (and some candidates such as Newt Gingrich) made of presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s comment a week or so ago that he (Romney) wasn’t too worried about the “poor” in our society. If you listened to the rest of the sentence, Mr. Romney said he wasn’t too concerned, either, about the rich—that both classes had structures in place to deal with their concerns. What he was trying to emphasize was the plight of the unemployed middle class in America. Context was ignored by the media in favor of highlighting a hot-button word or phrase.
In my youth I had an English class that used as its text a book titled “Language in Thought and Action” with a chapter, as I recall, titled ‘Ideas in Context’ by professor and later U.S. Senator S. I. Hayakawa . Without remembering much about specifics of the book, the title made a great impression upon me. He said, “Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue.”
Who among the actors on the current political stage might fit that description?
We must keep ideas, statements, even behaviors in context and be slow to judge others without first considering the context or frame of reference of the actor. We must be careful of adopting these approaches ourselves.
The Old Testament prophet Isaiah thundered “Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord and their works are in the dark…surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay…for the terrible one [i.e., the critic shall be] brought to nought, and the scorner [will be] consumed and all that watch for iniquity [without just cause will be]cut off; that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him…and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.” (Isaiah 29:15-16, 20-21).
Beware of ‘spin doctors.’
Take, for example, the issue the media (and some candidates such as Newt Gingrich) made of presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s comment a week or so ago that he (Romney) wasn’t too worried about the “poor” in our society. If you listened to the rest of the sentence, Mr. Romney said he wasn’t too concerned, either, about the rich—that both classes had structures in place to deal with their concerns. What he was trying to emphasize was the plight of the unemployed middle class in America. Context was ignored by the media in favor of highlighting a hot-button word or phrase.
In my youth I had an English class that used as its text a book titled “Language in Thought and Action” with a chapter, as I recall, titled ‘Ideas in Context’ by professor and later U.S. Senator S. I. Hayakawa . Without remembering much about specifics of the book, the title made a great impression upon me. He said, “Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue.”
Who among the actors on the current political stage might fit that description?
We must keep ideas, statements, even behaviors in context and be slow to judge others without first considering the context or frame of reference of the actor. We must be careful of adopting these approaches ourselves.
The Old Testament prophet Isaiah thundered “Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord and their works are in the dark…surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay…for the terrible one [i.e., the critic shall be] brought to nought, and the scorner [will be] consumed and all that watch for iniquity [without just cause will be]cut off; that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him…and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.” (Isaiah 29:15-16, 20-21).
Beware of ‘spin doctors.’
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
How Are You Feeling? How Are You Thinking?
I suppose it would be a little disconcerting for someone to ask you the latter question. It would be like someone greeting you with “How is your mind?” or “How is your heart?” instead of their just asking “How are you?” and not expecting much of a response from you beyond “Fine,” or “I am well.”
So, how are you thinking? What are you thinking? My guess is, for most of us, we are thinking about something related to sports, or politics, or family matters, or something we want, or food, or some physical or material thing that gives us pleasure or that worries us. It may be seasonal (Thanksgiving, Christmas, the 4th of July, or a church or company picnic) or in the news, or some demand being made upon us (a pending bill, a work assignment), a confrontation with someone in our life, or something presented to us—to our senses (a skunk or a sunset or loud music). And it is very likely presented to us through the media.
What would you think about analyzing what you are thinking? That is, would it be too radical a thought to just stop and do some thinking, some pondering, some reflective analysis, having some ideas? Your ideas may not be original (I doubt if many of mine are) but they can be valuable as you consider them, as you roll them over in your mind, look for them, and regularly put them on your daily agenda. Instead of constantly being acted upon, how about becoming the actor with the tool of thought a little more often? Directed action takes prior thought. The thought may be self-generated or may be suggested by reading others’ thoughts and insights. It may even be contributive to your happiness: “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.” (Proverbs 3:13)
Consider this provocative thought by Stephen Spender (from ‘I Think Continually of Those Who Were Truly Great’:
What is precious is never to forget
The essential delight of the blood drawn from ageless springs
Breaking through rocks in worlds before our earth.
Never to to deny its pleasure in the morning simple light
Nor its grave evening demand for love.
Never to allow gradually the traffic to smother
With noise and fog, the flowering of the Spirit.
I end with this: Have you ever thought about making as your vocation the contemplative life? If that seems a bit preposterous, how about a contemplative one day out of seven? Or an hour out of a day? Or at least a heartfelt prayer each day?
Think about it.
So, how are you thinking? What are you thinking? My guess is, for most of us, we are thinking about something related to sports, or politics, or family matters, or something we want, or food, or some physical or material thing that gives us pleasure or that worries us. It may be seasonal (Thanksgiving, Christmas, the 4th of July, or a church or company picnic) or in the news, or some demand being made upon us (a pending bill, a work assignment), a confrontation with someone in our life, or something presented to us—to our senses (a skunk or a sunset or loud music). And it is very likely presented to us through the media.
What would you think about analyzing what you are thinking? That is, would it be too radical a thought to just stop and do some thinking, some pondering, some reflective analysis, having some ideas? Your ideas may not be original (I doubt if many of mine are) but they can be valuable as you consider them, as you roll them over in your mind, look for them, and regularly put them on your daily agenda. Instead of constantly being acted upon, how about becoming the actor with the tool of thought a little more often? Directed action takes prior thought. The thought may be self-generated or may be suggested by reading others’ thoughts and insights. It may even be contributive to your happiness: “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.” (Proverbs 3:13)
Consider this provocative thought by Stephen Spender (from ‘I Think Continually of Those Who Were Truly Great’:
What is precious is never to forget
The essential delight of the blood drawn from ageless springs
Breaking through rocks in worlds before our earth.
Never to to deny its pleasure in the morning simple light
Nor its grave evening demand for love.
Never to allow gradually the traffic to smother
With noise and fog, the flowering of the Spirit.
I end with this: Have you ever thought about making as your vocation the contemplative life? If that seems a bit preposterous, how about a contemplative one day out of seven? Or an hour out of a day? Or at least a heartfelt prayer each day?
Think about it.
Friday, January 27, 2012
The Count of Monte Cristo
Now that I have finally finished reading this great classic novel I wonder why I waited so long in life to start it. It is a great book—a literary classic. Though it is complicated, with many characters and with many threads running through its basic plot, it is gripping and thought-provocative. It is a morality story through and through--just as life it. Enough said. Read it.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Unbroken
I have been blessed by being directed to many good, informative, or eye-opening books in my lifetime. A book in that category, recently finished, would be Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption, by Laura Hillenbrand. It is an account of an American soldier in WW2 who was lost at sea, captured by the Japanese, and who suffered unthinkable atrocities in a prisoner of war camp. Though badly damaged, Louis Zamperini came through his ordeal ultimately ‘unbroken’ according to the author.
The book causes me to wonder how I would handle such a challenge. Could I do it? Would it be a moral imperative for me to struggle to do it? What would really be accomplished if I did it? What if I gave up?
These questions lead one to consider related questions: How valuable is mortal life, if shortened by evil men, when one believes, as I do, that life will go on on the other side of mortality? Is the struggle to eke out a few years more of earth-life worth the pain? And if imprisoned, as was Zamperini, what about ‘confessions’ or repudiations or renunciations obtained under duress? Are they not meaningless? Would submission or compliance with the demands of evil, if done only for the purpose of appeasing one’s captor to avoid extreme torture (yet not complied with in one’s heart) be wrong?
Maybe this scriptural expectation sheds light on the issue: “When I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.”
Contrariwise, would the Old Testament examples of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and of Daniel provide examples of how we should not give up or were they just noble exceptions?
Finally, what about an answer given by God to one who was pure in heart: “My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.” Yea,“…if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he: Therefore, hold on thy way…thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.”
Maybe our response to vicissitudes such as Louis Zamperini and countless other victims would depend on for whom/what we are enduring—whether we are “endur[ing] valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ,” or for a noble response to the ignoble (such as being a valiant example for the less stouthearted) or, conversely, for vainglory or pride and the praise of man—simply enduring to avoid being called a coward.
If we know these principles, I think in our extremity we will find out our appropriate response.
The book causes me to wonder how I would handle such a challenge. Could I do it? Would it be a moral imperative for me to struggle to do it? What would really be accomplished if I did it? What if I gave up?
These questions lead one to consider related questions: How valuable is mortal life, if shortened by evil men, when one believes, as I do, that life will go on on the other side of mortality? Is the struggle to eke out a few years more of earth-life worth the pain? And if imprisoned, as was Zamperini, what about ‘confessions’ or repudiations or renunciations obtained under duress? Are they not meaningless? Would submission or compliance with the demands of evil, if done only for the purpose of appeasing one’s captor to avoid extreme torture (yet not complied with in one’s heart) be wrong?
Maybe this scriptural expectation sheds light on the issue: “When I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.”
Contrariwise, would the Old Testament examples of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and of Daniel provide examples of how we should not give up or were they just noble exceptions?
Finally, what about an answer given by God to one who was pure in heart: “My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.” Yea,“…if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he: Therefore, hold on thy way…thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.”
Maybe our response to vicissitudes such as Louis Zamperini and countless other victims would depend on for whom/what we are enduring—whether we are “endur[ing] valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ,” or for a noble response to the ignoble (such as being a valiant example for the less stouthearted) or, conversely, for vainglory or pride and the praise of man—simply enduring to avoid being called a coward.
If we know these principles, I think in our extremity we will find out our appropriate response.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Strengthening of America
“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” (Abraham Lincoln)
I think, as Americans, we would do well by measuring the respective economic, foreign policy, health care, education, crime, energy, environment and traditional American values planks in the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties (and their candidates for public office) by this standard articulated by perhaps the greatest of America’s public officials. Read the political parties’ platforms—I did. What comes closest to your standard for the perpetuation, affirmation and desired quality of life for all Americans?
I think, as Americans, we would do well by measuring the respective economic, foreign policy, health care, education, crime, energy, environment and traditional American values planks in the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties (and their candidates for public office) by this standard articulated by perhaps the greatest of America’s public officials. Read the political parties’ platforms—I did. What comes closest to your standard for the perpetuation, affirmation and desired quality of life for all Americans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)