Tag: philosophy

Something You Have, Something You Are, and Something You Know.

A few random thoughts and general observations.

Big Ass Mug Of Get Shit Done

Big Ass Mug Of Get Shit Done

Earlier today, I mentioned this was the “great trifecta” referring back to a security premise for a three-factor authentication. As it happens, someone pointed out something startlingly clear, they do matter, but not digitally, at least not in the method intended. It is an analog solution to s digital problem and I get it and obviously not engaging that discussion anymore because I would rather write blog posts like these. It’s been a beast of a day, and I want to end it in a manner more satisfying to myself, as opposed to the semantics of shit I am not emotionally invested enough in to go into a twitter discussion over it. In short, it’s bed time and I would rather write about something else. Take that however the frak you want, chances are this post wasn’t written for you. Happy reading πŸ˜‰

Something you Have…
Something you have is an item (or multiple items) that characteristically makes you unique in a million ways. I wont suppose to pre-define more, the idea of the characteristics are enough. They are variable in scope that is it patently easy say that we have a clear identity by their existence, even if that clarity presents an obvious lack of an item, a presence, or identity. Not to sound all Sun Tzu. Honestly the “something you have” could be confidence, could be intellect, an abundance or deficit of any other characteristic possessed. Me? I have a lot. I have pictures from a time before cell phones invaded every bit of our lives, I have written letters from exes from a time before we laughably though email was private. I have tons of mementos, at least something from almost every year of my life I think. A collection of things I have…this is me. Today, my prize possession is a friend, specifically knowing that friend is still alive tonight as I get ready to sleep, when it looked grim earlier, and hours of talking and de-escalating pay off long enough for the friend to understand that this life isn’t so bad. Literally talking someone off the edge is scary, but worth it, because I still have my friend.

Something you Are…
I am just a guy, I am at the top of my career, well-educated, I don’t regret much nowadays (except my weight) because there is a little bit of satisfaction in making sure you do the right thing in moral situations. But there are a million things about who i am that clearly needed to happen to lead me to today…a day that was busy, crazy, crazier, testing me, diagnosing me, me testing others, me mentoring others, other mentoring me and eventually…becoming a better person one day at a time. This is who I am. I keep hearing this in tv and it makes me smile. Some people run away from the fire, some people run into the fire. I run into the fire. It’s obviously not a superior process of longevity, but the premise of running into the fire is a fundamental flaw in our society I think…however noble. In the end, self-preservation is is expected…in some places here in the world it is actually the law. So in the end, I am flawed, but in a way that society accepts solely because they fear experiencing a situation that harm them without our presence. If we were wired otherwise, we wouldn’t need a fire department…now I am sure I am rambling because this is exactly how old fire teams used to work, a they were your neighbors and community that were nearby to man a bucket-line, right? Any bottom line, I am a guy that will run into the fire…it doesn’t bother me unless I try to rationalize it, so I don’t…acceptance, like ignorance…is bliss. That’s me. πŸ˜‰

Something I Know…
Well this is easy…I know fundamentally everything other than that which I have not yet learned. A propensity for stroking and slighting the ego in one sentence? CHECK. I know my memory is just good enough that my bother constantly complains that I remember far too much embarrassing things about us as kids. I know enough of many languages to pull off being incredibly literate and functionally illiterate in one sentence. Remember that propensity mentioned earlier?..CHECKED AGAIN. I know that I don’t know everything, but I remember more than I forget, so my progress is good, and more often than not, I might be the smartest guy in the room…which is almost always also the room I am leaving as quickly as possible. I live to learn, constantly. The scope of what I know isn’t really squat, but it is enough that I’ve pulled off managing IT for **arbitrary number** WHOA over 50 companies…(I went ahead and counted…and stopped counting at 50 πŸ˜‰ So it could be supposed I know something about that stuff. I would certainly suppose such, but I also know how to use oil pastels on canvas and how to smoke the perfect pork loin. I also know how to use a radio, and 15-20 years ago I could have pulled off some higher math while simultaneously knocking down a bottle of Grand Marnier. I know that betting/prompting a drunk friend to write a virus in minute on my roomie’s computer would probably have gotten me kicked out, still did it…but I know not to do such things anymore. I also know that everyone everywhere should act like they are wearing a cape more and act like they wear a uniform less. The world needs more role models, and I know I am obligated to try and be better.

In summation, I helped a friend stay alive tonight, I got a lot of work done, had an great conversation with good people this evening, and ended the evening with reading a great book rather than engaging in an argument on Twitter about shit that doesn’t matter anyway. Yep, another unique amazing day.

I know I am a dork. Be excellent to each other.

-T




A Letter Concerning Toleration

I have wanted to post this for a long time. But recently it seems like it’s imperative. It’s not a short read…or an easy one…but it is a damn good read regarding toleration. Why? …Because he’s one of the most conservative religious figures in history…and yet he’s speaking/arguing in favor of tolerance. Not in half-baked ambiguous rhetoric, but using both logical argument as well as biblical verse forms what’s considered one of the renowned arguments in favor of religious tolerance ever. There are of course a few points that arent covered in this letter that are addressed in later discourse, but a lot of the logic is still pretty sound.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke (1689)1

john_lockeHonoured Sir,

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith; for everyone is orthodox to himself; these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. “The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them,” said our Saviour to his disciples,” but ye shall not be so.”1 The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men’s lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. “Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity.”[2] “Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” said our Lord to Peter.3 It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love. Now, I appeal to the consciences of those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of religion, whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or no? And I shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when I shall see those fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their friends and familiar acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts of the Gospel; when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members of their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices and without amendment are in danger of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus express their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle of charity, as they pretend, and love to men’s souls that they deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives ; I say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities, which (according to the apostle)4 manifestly relish of heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks and people? These, and such-like things, are certainly more contrary to the glory of God, to the purity of the Church, and to the salvation of souls, than any conscientious dissent from ecclesiastical decisions, or separation from public worship, whilst accompanied with innocence of life. Why, then, does this burning zeal for God, for the Church, and for the salvation of souls ; burning I say, literally, with fire and faggot ; pass by those moral vices and wickednesses, without any chastisement, which are acknowledged by all men to be diametrically opposite to the profession of Christianity, and bend all its nerves either to the introducing of ceremonies, or to the establishment of opinions, which for the most part are about nice and intricate matters, that exceed the capacity of ordinary understandings? Which of the parties contending about these things is in the right, which of them is guilty of schism or heresy, whether those that domineer or those that suffer, will then at last be manifest when the causes of their separation comes to be judged of He, certainly, that follows Christ, embraces His doctrine, and bears His yoke, though he forsake both father and mother, separate from the public assemblies and ceremonies of his country, or whomsoever or whatsoever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged a heretic.

Show 1 footnote

  1. Reviewed from Popple’s translation