Before Drama and Beef it was Pajamas with feet (blockhead)

">" border="0" alt="" />
I am reading the story of parents who decided to listen to what their 2 year old had to say when they were not around.
This was a project in the 1980's called "narratives from the crib". You can read about it in the book Tipping Point. When the parents noticed their daughter talking to herself at night they began recording their conversations with her as they put her to bed and then the conversations Emily would have with herself before falling asleep. The recordings were then analyzed by a bunch of linguists and psychos and "they found that Emily's conversations with herself were more advanced than her conversations with her parents. One observer wrote "For once the lights are out and her parents leave the room, Emily reveals a stunning mastery of language forms we would never have suspected from her (everyday) speech."

At this point I want to clarify something. A narrative is not the story itself. It is the structure or the telling of the story or retelling of a story.

One of the psychologists (bruner) said this about children "They are not able to bring theories that organize things in terms of cause and effect and relationships, so they turn things into stories, and when they try to make sense of their life they use the storied version of their experience as the basis for further reflection. If they don't catch something in a narrative structure, it doesn't get remembered very well, and it doesn't seem to be accesible for further kinds of mulling over."

Some of the stories Emily would tell herself were "what linguists call a temoporal narrative." "She would create a story to try to integrate events, actions, and feelings into one structure--a process that is a critical part of a child's mental development."
(In the book they give a really cool example of a story she tells herself. It is her ideal Friday routine.)
This is what the was written about what she said "a remarkable act of world making..." I really like that phrase "world making."
All this research and much more is what was used to create the T.V. show blues clues. They wanted to make a show better than sesame street for kids. So they set out to build upon sesame street and take it further by using the narrative. "But it becomes easy to understand how you would make a children's show even stickier that Sesame Street. You'd make it perfectly literal, without any wordplay or comedy that would confuse preschoolers. And you'd teach kids how to think in the same way that kids teach themselves how to think---in the form of the story."

Watch an old episode of sesame street and one of blues clues and notice the differences. It is interesting(ss)/boring (bluesclues).

What struck me about all of this is the Hebraic way of teaching. The memorizing of the Torah. Midrash (Any of a group of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures compiled between a.d. 400 and 1200 and based on exegesis, parable, and haggadic legend)....the retelling of stories. Parables--temporal narratives. The passing on of history and stories through story telling etc. It is a very interactive process with lots of repition.

Blues cluse is much more repetitive than sesame street ever was and this is why "If you think about the world of a preschooler, they are surrounded by stuff they don't understand--things that are novel. So the driving force for a preshcooler is not a search for nevelty, like it is with older kids, it's a search for understanding and predictability (anderson)".

This is why we are bored stiff by Blues clues. It is repetitive and we are looking for novelty. We have grown up and seen it allllll before. Same s%*t different corner.

But for a child, "on each succesive watching they master more and more, guessing correctly deeper into the program, until by the end, they can anticipate every answer." The show starts easy and then gets progressively more complex.

to be continued...in the meantime read the message bibles explanation of the first five books of the bible.

Fear,Anger,Love/Stop,Go,Corner

My buddy took a driving course for super cars. He drove all kinds of really expensive cars. It cast him $4000.00 dollars for a couple days of lessons. One of the lessons involved a bowl attached to the hood of the car with a tennis ball rolling around in it. They had to weave through an obstacle course without the ball flying out of the bowl---whoever did it the fastest won.
The most important thing he learned he told me was about what a car could do.
He said it could do 3 things. 1. Stop 2. Go and 3. Corner. He explained to me that each of these aspects works according to ratios. Meaning that you can't stop as well when you are also trying to go. Foot on gas and brake at the same time for example. Here is another scenario. Your driving about 60 and realize that you are about to miss your turn so you begin to brake and turn at the same time. The result is usually a loss of traction and you miss the turn and stopping takes alot longer than you had time to. Many of us have sat stuck in a ditch or peeling our car off a pole in an intersection wondering what just happened.

I think that sometimes it is better to do one thing at a time, sometimes it is essential to do them in the right order, and other times it is important to know where you need to focus your energy most 60/40, 90/10, more love less anger, less go more corner etc. I think our emotions fit this as well in some aspects.

When we try to love and fear at the same time it doesn't work well. Sometimes we don't tell people we love the truth because we are afraid to hurt them.--and then they never grow up or don't see reality. Sometimes when I am agry I say things I don't mean to people I love. It is when these powerfull forces are both exerting their power that sometimes my emotions come out all wrong. Love can make my anger very irrational. Then sometimes my love constrains my fear or anger.

Try this next time you go into a corner slow down first, hold speed while you corner, and accelerate out. Then think about your emotions and add to this blogg. I think that it is a helpfull way to look at it, if you find it helpfull please help us think it through more thouroughly.

end.

Lost in translation

1. "Language barrier is a figurative phrase used primarily to indicate the difficulties faced when people who have no language in common attempt to communicate with each other."

2. "Typically, little communication occurs unless one or both parties learns a new language, which requires an investment of time and effort."

3. "Language barriers also influence migration. Emigrants from a country are far more likely to move to a destination country which speaks the same language as the emigrant's country."

The above quotes are from wikipedia. The purpose of them is to help explain the following idea that author Alan Hirsch puts forth in his book the forgotten ways.

"Perhaps the single most significant source of the malaise of leadership in our day comes from the way, and the context, in which we form leaders. For the most part, the would-be leader is withdrawn from the context of ordinary life and ministry in order to study in a somewhat cloistered environment, for up to seven years in some cases. during that period they are subjected to an immense amount of complex information relating to the biblical disciplines, theology, ethics, church history, pastoral theology, etc. And while the vast majority of this information is useful and correct, what is dangerous to discipleship in that setting is the actual socialization processes that the student undergoes along the way. In effect, he or she is socialized out of ordinary life and develops a kind of language and thinking that is seldom understood and expressed outside of the seminary. It's as if in order to learn about ministry and theology, we leave our places of habitation and take a flight into the wonderfully abstracted world of abstraction, we fly around there for along period of time, and then wonder why we have trouble landing again."

I have experienced both sides of this to some degree. I came into a christian environment that had it's own sort of language and after a period of years left speaking that language. I have had some trouble learning how to communicate within the context I now live in. I am familiar with bar life, that used to be my life, the problem is not talking the bar languag, but being able to translate what I have learned and seen in the available language.

Sometimes the language of christians irritates me so much. Jargon is very frustrating when you don't know it. Lauryn Hill says her songs can sound a little cryptic...(she gave her audience opportunity for explanation, but i wonder if it got edited out for the unplugged 2 CD).

I think that the definitions of language barrier give us some insight into these problems.
2. Both parties must be willing to learn. (Jesus certainly walked in our shoes.) Relationship requires an investment of time and effort.
3. Migration is more common to a place where language is similar. Perhaps the reason many of you chose MIU as your church.

(There is something about spacehog that people in Paris LOVE)me too.

I recommend reading Chapter 4 of hirch's forgotten ways. It is about discipleship and this is the chapter that I pulled the quote from. He has lots of other interesting things to say, but the thing that really strikes me is the differences he points out between hebraic concepts of knowledge and Greek concepts of knowledge. One he says is right acting leads to right thinking--while the other is right thinking leads to right acting. I think that both have merrit. And that both are limited. Positive thinking only goes so far, and doing dance steps without hearing the music only goes so far. It is precisely here that I realize that relationship with Jesus is necessary. YES act, Yes Think, but must know him.
I am still wondering how to know him since he is not here physically as with the disciples...and since he had to leave so that the spirit would come which seems pretty important, and what that can be like. I don't see how discipleship can look the same since Jesus is not here right now with me, but I think that he has made a provision that involves his people and the holy spirit.

gotta hit the hay.
matt.

Power VS Authority

In Alan Herch's book "the forgotten ways" he makes a interesting distinction between power and authority. The example he used was this.

"George Bush has power; Mother Teresa had authority!"

I like this for a few reasons. 1. the difference between their positions & 2. their genders.

I looked at both power and authority from the stance of "Why do I obey this form?".

A. For power I obey because of fear, fear of consequences, or potential gains/incentives I might recieve.

B. For authority I obey because of love or respect. It is more relational.

Where power is bestowed by the position (President), I see authority gained by the character and relationship of the person. (Perhaps from caring or time spent--trust)

I think that the genders are good because men tend to be more factual while women tend to be more relational. (not always the case in all situations at all times.)

Many problems occur when we try to use power for a job that requires authority.
To be balanced we need to understand both. They both have their place.

Alan Hirsch points out that Gandhi`"altered his world, not through political maneuvering or institutional power, but rather through the sheer inspirational power of an integrated life based on religious, moral and social virtues." and that Jesus changed the world through" the power of his teachings and the sheer quality of his life.

next time you argue

More than likely you will have arguments and disagreements throughout your life. Something that I have learned recently is a way to objectively look at arguments. I noticed that when my wife and I and I argue it can be looked at simply like this...

2 different people with 2 different goals.

This can look more like a competition than a collaboration very quickly.

If you both try to get your goal there is a good chance that your personalities will collide. Your differences are easily seen, but if you are going opposite directions even the things that you have in common will be conflicting.

This is where the art of living and negotiating comes in. If you and the other party/parties can agree upon a common goal then all of your differences and similarites are going in the same direction. Doesn't mean you won't have opportunity to cut eachother off and ding some fenders, but you can avoid a head on collision. Hopefully your differences will help to build eachother up in weaker areas.

I see this in business too. Two people with conflicting ideas of what a business is for. An overarching purpose, idea, story, is necessary. It seems that people with often argue right and wrong when the problem is clearly not a moral problem. The problem is the same as the one above...different people with different goals...in this situation I think it is best to clarify your ideas of the purpose of the business. Then combine your efforts to find an over-arching goal that you can both agree on. Then, when you have future disagreements, you can all look at your mutual goal and discuss how your "opinions" help or hinder the common goal without it becoming a matter of right or wrong.


I am a person who DOES NOT LIKE CONFLICT! And I have found this model to be helpfull for me. It allows me to remain calm, for the most part, and see complex problems in a simple way that can be talked about without the often emotionally charged RIGHT and WRONG coming into play.

Thank God for answers to bath tub prayers! because I have found this to be very helpful.

love, matt.

as you read these posts consider....

"Our business is to present the Christion faith clothed in modern terms, not to propogate modern thought clothed in Christian terms. confusion here is fatal"
J.I. Packer

I wanted to put this quote in for discussion. There is a man by the name of HUD that spoke on self deception. He said that it's when you have forgotten that you forgot something. I know that there are many things I do that I am quite unaware of and so I got married...and they are becoming more visible daily.
love, matt.

Punktuation

Even after this simple explanation I still don't get it.
So I will use the only punctuation I know. Punktuation.