The Narrative

    I love books.  I haven’t read many recently, but I assure you it isn’t from a sudden lack of interest in literature.  Anyway, I tend to read fiction faster than non-fiction, and I think it’s because fiction contains stories.  I realize that different kinds of things are significant to different people.  Every now and then I see beauty in mathematics and biology and paintings, but usually beauty is most apparent in those things when they fit appropriately into some kind of story.  For example, I have been experimenting with different artists and styles of music lately.  I have also been thinking about why I like certain songs and not others.  One observation is that I do not tend to like songs that I find.  I like songs that I have heard before at a concert, on the radio or especially if it was used in the soundtrack of a movie or a t.v. show.  Production teams often have members whose primary task is to select music for individual scenes.  I’m not talking about orchestral soundtracks here, I mean the pop, rock and melancholy acoustic genres that play in the background of the fun or dramatic sequences.  These songs fit better into our likings because they play a part in a story.  The notes and timbres themselves connect to certain moods, but they are particularly effective when they remind us of a time when the events that build the song’s context also formed our emotions into a corresponding mood.  If I know some of you, you’ve already started listening to KEZ, and if I know KEZ they probably started playing Christmas music around what?  Halloween?  Anyway, some of my friends have started listening to Christmas music on the radio, and I started thinking, what stations play Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Perry Como, Burl Ives, the Carpenters except at Christmas time?  Why is it that these artists have staying power for just one month of the year every year.  It isn’t as if they only performed Christmas music, but for some reason people still listen to them at Christmas time even though they are almost entirely forgotten the rest of the year.  Why?  I think it is because Christmas music tends to be associated with Christmas memories, and considering the cultural and familial significance we give to the holiday season it shouldn’t be surprising that we tend to have very fond memories of Christmas.  Our brains connect the memories with the patterns and shape of the song.  When we rehear those songs, our brains recall the pieces of our story that connected to that song.
    Dorothy Sayers and C. S. Lewis used analogies of stories to help visualize the way God works in the world.  They said God is like an author, and we are like characters in the story that he is writing.  I first heard that a few years ago.  It keeps growing on me.  If you take all the things that happen in day to day life and put them in the context of a story, it takes on a new significance.  Think about all the random events that happen in stories.  I can think of three types right now, the events that are clearly and immediately significant, events that seem insignificant initially but as a reader you later realize the event was key because of its connection to another event.  The third type depends a lot on the author.  Some authors do this well and others don’t.  These events are like scenery.  It really has no significance to the plot or story line, but it changes the tone or the pace of the story in a way that affects the reader.  I think Charles Dickens spends a lot of words setting scenes.  I think he does a great job, but I know people who love literature who simply cannot stand his pacing.  I don’t mind the fact that he spends words on scenery though because I think it adds emotional significance to the events that are inherently meaningful, even if they only force you to be patient.
    Significance is probably the most desired thing in today’s culture.  Everyone wants to be involved in significant charities, hold significant opinions, have significant friends.  The fear of an insignificant life followed by an insignificant death is probably responsible for a significant number of suicides.  If our lives are stories in progress being written and developed by an omnipotent, loving God, we should be fearless.  All this fear of insignificance must stem from our metanarrative about the world.  Are we worried that life is a roulette wheel and you just hope you throw your chips in the right cause or belief system?  Are we concerned that if we don’t find our identity and realize our full potential, we will have lost the game we call life?  I like the idea of the story because it strongly implies a sense of purpose behind everything.  Think about yourself as a character. Some characters react well to the events that occur to them and they find ways to improve the story.  Some characters are angered by the story they have found themselves in, so they make the story miserable for everyone else.  Some characters are just interesting and unusual so their antics and quirkiness make the story enjoyable.  Which kind of character are you?  Which kind do you want to be?




P.S. I've had this idea floating around in my head for a while, I guess a story post is a good time to act on it.  If you can think of any stories about my dad, could you send them to me?  I guess you could post a comment, or you could e-mail me.  I've just been thinking about how many memories and stories there are that I don't want to forget, and I know you have them too, so I'd really like to compile some, and hang on to them.  Anyway, I think you all know my e-mail address.  It would really mean a lot to me if you did this and maybe helped to spread the word.  Thank you.

Humility

    Somehow I ended up as a TA in the Physics department here. In a way it makes perfect sense because I’m studying Physics and education, so it seems like teaching Physics even if it’s just helping people with homework is a perfect fit. On the other hand, when I took Physics last year, I got a decent grade, but it wasn’t because I did a great job on homework.  Most weeks I spent hours staring at questions for time periods best measured in multiples of ten minutes, then wandering around campus looking for people who knew more than I did.  I’m hoping that being a slow learner might make me a better teacher because every time I learn something, I have to think about it ten different ways.  So when I try to describe something, I already know ten different ways to think about it.  It’s a theory anyway.  Last night I ran a help session which was admittedly a bit of a mess.  Everyone who came in had trouble with the same problem which was good because I practically had it memorized by the end.  Unfortunately, one student figured it out pretty quickly, but for some reason I thought he had done it wrong so I made him redo parts of his problem over and over again.  A few other students needed help with the same problem who described the method of answering correctly, but after they left, I realized they had come up with the wrong answer.  At the end another student came in for a few minutes, got off to a good start and then had to leave before she got very far.  Maybe you’ve had the feeling on a test where you know how to approach a problem, you had it figured out before and everything made sense, but then when you look at that paper and the miniature characters waiting for action, you realized that you really have no idea whether the answer is a or c.  You could guess, but there’s more at stake here than usual and you really don’t want to take that risk.  That feeling hit me when I was trying to explain how to find the x component of a hockey puck’s velocity.  There were too many options.  I knew our options were: original or complementary angle, sine or cosine, adjacent or opposite and horizontal or vertical.  For some reason I couldn’t decide which ones corresponded with the others.  Unfortunately, every time I changed my mind, bewildered freshmen flipped their pencils upside down and smudged out another set of figures which had just started to look promising.

    Today in my Thermal Physics class, Dr. Poelarends came prepared to give a lecture on Chapter T5 of our textbook.  Soon he realized that according to our schedule we weren’t supposed to have read a chapter, but we were supposed to be doing an in class activity.  We ended up doing the activity, but you could tell he was slightly embarrassed and not entirely comfortable.  I’m not sure how sympathetic I would have been under normal circumstances, but I can tell you that today, I could really feel I with him.

    I think Matt DuMee said it first in a speech at my graduation, either that or something he said in his speech made me think of it.  Regardless if this maxim is not already known it should be, that humility is the best defense against humiliation.  For Gregory’s sake I’ll define these terms to suit my purposes.  Humility is having a realistic opinion of yourself and portraying yourself honestly to others.  Humiliation occurs when other people realize that you are not as good as you want them to think you are.  For example, when you tell the guys at the park about that free throw contest you won, then you shoot the ball over the backboard… that’s humiliating.  If you had just shot the ball in the first place, without trying to impress everyone, no one would have been disappointed in your ability or lack thereof.  Two Biblical passages come to mind one from Proverbs, “let another praise you and not your own mouth” and the warning not to take the best seat in the house, but to sit on the floor and let the host move you to the seat of honor.  Interesting.  You go to the back of the line, and maybe you’ll get a free pass to the front.  It seems like your proper place has already been decided by the host, so you can either make her move you up or down.  You don’t get to decide your absolute position but you can determine your direction of motion.  For some reason, you’re both happier if you give her the opportunity to promote you rather than displace you….  But you should know your place about as well as the host does right?  I mean you should know whether you’re in her top ten list or whether you’re the guy who just fits in better at the kids’ table.

    I think just about everyone has an overinflated image of themselves.  All your strengths, weaknesses, struggles, inches, ounces and stories are bigger to you than they are to anyone else, except perhaps a lover.  It comes back to the idea of perspective.  From your perspective the universe really does revolve around you, because by definition, everything you see is from your point of view.  Really, it is just as likely to revolve around you as any other 2x1x.5 meter section of space, but no one else is going to see it the way you do.  You might say that a lot of people today have low self-esteem and don’t need any more humility.  On the contrary, if you have low self-esteem, humility is exactly what you need.  Your weight, zits and stutter are not as big as they seem.  They may seem like lakes that are deep enough to drown in, but it turns out they’re merely puddles.  Of course, you can still drown, but only if you bury your face in them and breathe deeply.  I’m not trying to minimalize self-esteem issues, I’m just saying that the problem may be based more in focusing on your own problems.  There may be exceptions to the humiliation rule at the point where human dignity is violated.  At that point, when you have reasonable expectations of image and treatment, a certain amount of indignation may be reasonable and dutiful when those expectations are violated.

    Humility in opinions is important.  When you arrogantly say that your opinions are unquestionably correct, you place your limited perspective above that of another person’s.  Refusing to give ear to another perspective is ridiculous because another limited human being is likely to have a better vantage point than I do.  On the other hand, humility is inappropriate in some discussions.  If you represent an authority on the subject in question, you really should not change your opinions very easily.  Simply giving in to everyone you disagree with is flat out wishy-washy.  For example, when I run a TA session, in theory I represent the Wheaton College Physics department, which is presenting the dominant view of physicists who have much greater authority than I do or the students currently taking the class.  I guess the fundamental juxtaposition here is one of humility and confidence, but in order to represent the department well, I need to study to show myself an approved TA with no reason to be ashamed of my position as it is founded on the authority of others in whom I have confidence. 

    You may have noticed this already, but the last paragraph may be applied to theological discussions as well by replacing most of the nouns.  The other day I was talking to Bryce about the word dogma.  I think dogma is any position you hold that is based on authority which you don’t think should be questioned.  Bad dogma is founded on flimsy authority.  Good dogma is based on good authority.

    I think this would be an appropriate post to mention that I really don’t know what I’m talking about.  These are just the directions my mind goes sometimes.  I’m not dogmatic about much that I say on this blog, but I’d love to know if it even sounds reasonable.  Comments and e-mails are a great method of contradiction.

Obsessionism

    It’s that time of year, that time just between the scintillatingly drowsy summer and the numbingly focused winter.  These are the days when I add event after repeating event into my calendar and marvel at how many blank spaces there are that I know will be filled by study time, casual social time, time spent wondering how to best spend my time and more time wondering why I didn’t spend my time as well as I should have.  Right now though, I’m cautiously optimistic, mostly because even if I am overwhelmed by the amount of work I have, I think I’ll enjoy my work and the people I work with.  As far as I can tell, there are only two things that are clear in foresight and hindsight, the quality of the work you do and how much you enjoy it.  I’m using a pretty broad definition of work.  It could include conversations, hobbies, and games along with manual labor and paper shuffling.

    As I schedule my next few months and make decisions about what is important enough to devote a few hours to every week, priorities are an unfortunate necessity.  I’ve never really liked prioritizing.  Of course I have preferences.  I like certain foods and flavors more than others. I have friends that are closer than others whom I feel more comfortable around.  Some topics interest me more than others.  But I’ll eat just about anything.  At a party I usually talk to the person within the shortest radius.  My bookshelf holds Emerson’s Essays, War and Peace, and Black simultaneously.  On the other hand, those are outliers and diverse bookshelves are pretty much standard issue at a liberal arts college like Wheaton. 

    There’s an exchange in National Treasure that goes something like this:

Riley: Anyone crazy enough to believe us isn’t going to want to help.

Ben: One step short of crazy, what do you get?

Riley: Obsessed.

Ben: Passionate.

    So let’s say passionate is one step short of obsessed.  It’s an interesting thought.  Passion is good, drive allows you to accomplish things, but somehow too much passion is no longer useful.  In fact, it’s annoying, counterproductive and dangerous.  We only use the word obsessed in extreme cases.  If someone is willing to remortgage their house to see a Hannah Montana concert we say they’re obsessed.  If it isn’t as extreme, we might say their priorities are out of order.  Or an economist like Andrew would say that they are not accurately balancing the costs and benefits.  It’s as if they picked one value and made it into a trump.  In card games if a suit is a trump it means it’s value is unnaturally inflated.  So a two of spades might beat a king of diamonds.  The king is really a higher card, but the two of spades is trumped so it can beat anything from another suit.  Most people think off houses as more valuable than concert tickets, but apparently somebody assigned trump status to Hannah Montana.

    Some trumping may be appropriate.  For example, heavenly priorities trump earthly priorities.  Regardless of the earthly benefits, if an action causes spiritual harm, the net affect is negative.  For example people have a spiritual element to them.   Money does not.  If your closest friend was going to die unless you paid all of your money to save their life, would the amount of money really make any difference?  Natural human perspectives blow monetary, physical benefits out of proportion.  To be really balanced, we have to compensate by underemphasizing things like financial success and personal achievement.  Physical training is of some value, but there are bigger obstacles out there than defensive linemen.

    I think any sort of “-ism” implies an obsession or at least an overemphasis.  For example, a nationalist will tend to put the good of the country above the good of the world or their community.  A pragmatist forgets that morality and aesthetics are valuable.  Relativism takes the true ideas that objects and ideas can be viewed from different perspectives and it declares that there is no universal perspective.

    I started thinking if I would classify myself as any kind of “–ist.”  Interestingly, no form of the words Christian or Evangelical contains the suffixes –ist or –ism.  However, in the third chapter of the Dictionary, I found some terms like “Calvinism,” “Conservatism” or “Constitutionalism” which didn’t bother me much.  Afterwards I started noticing a pattern.  In general, people who claimed the term “Calvinism” tended to place a lot of emphasis on the doctrines of predestination and depravity.  Meanwhile, others who held to the same beliefs but seemed to have their list of priorities in better order preferred to refer to themselves as “reformed” or as “believers in the doctrines of grace.”

    I’m not saying that it’s always wrong to be an –ist.  there probably are some good –isms that I’ve passed over.  In fact, I would love to see some counterexamples in the comments.  But in the English language –isms tend to be used for obsessions.  Meanwhile as evangelicals hunt for idols to tear down in their lives, might I humbly suggest that they double check their –isms to make sure they have not expanded beyond their proper place.

Dark Glasses and Dim Mirrors

All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change.
-Gilbert K. Chesterton

    What will the future look like?  Of course it’s difficult to predict because there are so many invisible factors in the present that will influence the future.  In fact, the present is so vast that regardless of our ability to perceive all the occurrences in the world we are unable to comprehend it all.  At best we can pick out certain pieces that apply to a situation and analyze them well enough to predict the outcome with varying accuracy.  Any occupation in the world can be interpreted in the light of influencing the future either by gathering, analyzing or applying information.

    Honestly, I don’t have a specific direction that I wanted to go from here, just a jumble of thoughts I’ve had in my head.  My method of writing is this: I retrace my thoughts since my last post and pick out the few that seem interesting or profound enough to share, then try to connect them and translate them into sentences and paragraphs.  Several thoughts converged on the idea of the future, but that means that since I used the future as a starting point, I can’t use it as a transition, because everything diverges from here.  The last few posts have been more personal but I think a few choice sentences will bring you up to speed.  Before July 11th, my future seemed too small.  When I tried to look ahead at the rest of my life, I couldn’t figure out how to fit all the things I wanted to do into one lifetime even if it meant a century.  Now one lifetime seems very long.  If I knew I would see dad again in twenty years, I would squeeze a lot into those twenty years and make a very good use of that time.  In a way they would be difficult, but in a way they would be easy.  It’s merely the infinite mass of a lifetime that is such an exasperating obstacle.  Of course it magnifies the image and desire for heaven, but it’s hard to catch a solid glimpse through the fog.

    Sometimes I think our view of the world is too small.  People like boxes.  I think it’s interesting that people say they don’t like Math and Science because they feel too limited by the laws and calculations and formulas.  They say that they like writing because they can express themselves in any way they feel like.  I think that’s interesting because I feel a lot more limited working on an essay than I do in a science lab.  In English, you have to follow very specific patterns of order, usage and punctuation and you have a limited set of words that you can use as determined by Merriam-Webster and his successors.  As far as I can tell science means observation.  In other words you can do anything you want and as long as you’re paying attention to what happens you are “doing science.”  And the world is so big that you could go on observing it for a hundred years and still not understand it.  In fact, you could pass your findings on to generation after generation of curious scientists and they would still find more and more questions to look into.  One major difficulty is that people like to think in boxes.  They impose rules on nature which look like they exist here but maybe they don’t exist there.  Until quantum mechanics, every turn of progress in science became more and more logical.  Every observation fit formulas and laws very strictly.  So of course, when scientists couldn’t find rules for a layer, they assumed that everything beneath that layer was random, in other words, the castle of the orderly universe is constructed by the building blocks of chaos.  There are libraries full of theories already written explaining this phenomena already.  But is it possible that the rules for the next layer are just a different kind of rule?  Maybe the next set of rules are written in a language more like English than a mathematical formula.  Maybe the rules are more like commands.  “Thou shalt act like a particle when thou art observed.” and “Thou shalt act like a wave when thou art not observed.”  Having said that, I hesitate to press the publish button because several philosophical and methodical objections have already occurred to me.  On the other hand, it’s about as likely to be right as any other theory, so it might as well be put down on the list of possibilities right?

More Pain and Healing

     Of course I can’t stop thinking about him.  I have probably never gone an entire day without thinking about him in my whole life, but it’s different now.  There are different ways of thinking about it, but at some point or another they all converge on the fact that as long as I live, I won’t see him or talk to him or listen to him or ask him for advice.  And no matter how I approach that point, it is incredibly painful.  A very dear friend of his came by yesterday and talked to me for a little while, he explained an Aramaic word to me that means “transfer” I can’t remember the actual word, but he said that it is a word that replaces death in the Middle East, particularly for Christians, because rather than death which is an ending, it is merely a transfer.  And in fact, he said, it’s like a promotion.  It’s hard to describe the impact of those words on me.  It was so encouraging, and so good, and so true, but it still hurts.  One coworker may be happy for another that they were promoted to a better position, but the fact that the coworker will no longer be nearby to encourage and advise and collaborate may still be saddening.  My dad’s friend said that it is a happy event and that it is a good thing for my dad, but that when Lazarus died, Jesus knew He would raise him again, and that Lazarus would be alright. Still, Jesus wept.

    Is it wrong that when I’m alone I want to be with company and when I’m with company I want to be alone?  Is it wrong that when I eat, I notice that the food is good as a matter of fact, rather than enjoying the food?  Is it wrong that one day I don’t care about hygiene and the next day I think about how I look?  Is it wrong that I avoid going to sleep by writing a blog post at night when I know I need rest for tomorrow?  Is it wrong that I sleep like a log as soon as I do go to sleep?  Is it wrong that I describe how difficult days can be in my blog and then tell people that I’m doing “all right,” but then add a little worried look to show that not everything is right?  Is it wrong that I’m so aware and so in control of my facial expressions until I realize that I’m going to cry if I’m not careful?  Is it wrong that one minute I feel like I can’t live another moment, and the next I know I’ll have to live a lot more, and the next I really do feel perfectly fine?

    Two good friends of mine lost their moms to cancer in the last few years.  I remember seeing one of them a few weeks afterwards.  I was hesitant to approach her because I wasn’t sure how to start a conversation with someone experiencing so much grief.  I decided the best idea was to put on a solemn, concerned expression and just say hello.  Much to my surprise, she smiled when she returned my hello.  Then she started talking about everyday things as if only everyday things had happened in the last month.  I think she even laughed during the conversation.  Something didn’t make sense.  How could someone experiencing enough pain for years smile or laugh only a few weeks later?  Doesn’t the massive grief outweigh the momentary amusement?  Only at times, thank God.

    Thinking about the past is easy.  Thinking about the present isn’t too bad.  Thinking about the future hurts.

    Another encouraging/painful thing people say is that his body is just an empty shell, that he has gone home to be with the Lord, and that what we saw after he left was just a broken body, but that my dad is no longer there.  Of course, I’m incredibly glad that he no longer needs the shell and that he is finally in the completed form God always meant for him to be.  But I loved the shell too.

Romans 8 and some other stuff

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.  For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.  For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.  To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.  For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.  Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.  You however are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.  Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.  But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.  If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit who dwells in you.  So then brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.  For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.  For all who are led by the Spirit of God are Sons of God.  For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons by whom we cry, “Abba, Father!”  The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may be glorified with him.  For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.  For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.  For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage and decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.  For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of together in the pains of childbirth until now.  And not only the creation but we ourselves who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.  For in this hope we were saved.  Now hope that is seen is not hope.  For who hopes for what he sees?  But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.  Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness.  For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit interecedes for is with groanings too deep for words.  And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called and those whom he called he justified and those whom he justified he also glorified.  What then shall we say to these things?  If God is for us, who can be against us?  He who did not spare His own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things.  Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?  It is God who justifies.  Who is to condemn?  Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?  Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?  As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all day long: we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”  No in all these things, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers nor height nor depth, nor anything else in creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

-Romans 8:1-39

 

Scripture reading always seemed so academic.  Sometimes there seems to be a layer of misunderstanding between my mind and the words on the pages.  I always thought that I needed to make the words speak to me by slowing down and various comprehension methods.  It’s not true.  Even to a visual learner, in the right time, listening is completely sufficient.  No forced thinking is necessary.

 

When you cannot trace His hand, you must learn to trust His heart.

-C.J. Mahaney

 

“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.  If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” but if Christ has in fact been raised from the dead, we, even in our sufferings, are most to be envied.

-Quotation from 1 Corinthians 15:17-19

Pain and Healing

    In a way, I like being cut.  I don’t mean that I enjoy the pain or that I cut myself intentionally, but there’s something fascinating about a cut.  Maybe I should say that I like observing a cut.  Imagine me dropping a glass on the floor, a nice glass that has been around for a while that is hard to replace.  Then imagine that instead of getting a broom to sweep up the glass, I try to pick up the shards with my bare hands.  So far, this sounds all too possible.  Anyway, let’s say I cut myself on one of the shards.  The thing is I know I would be more frustrated at myself for breaking the glass than for cutting myself.  Or ant bites, I hate ant bites, but I still clean up ant trails.  And burns, okay burns are a little worse because they hurt more and for a longer time, but still I’m okay with getting burned.  There’s just that little pinch of regret and then the, “Man, now I have to carry ice around for an hour” thought.  By the way, if you’re ever being tortured and offered a choice of burning methods, avoid peanut butter and ropes, just some friendly advice from personal experience.  Why is it that I don’t mind being cut, but I hate it when glass shatters or porcelain cracks or pages rip.  That pinch of regret turns into an ache of regret a stomach tightening that lasts a little longer than it should.
    Skin is incredibly designed for all kinds of great functions.  Did you know that the outermost layer of skin is all dead cells.  After skin cells die, they stay on your body, still attached to each other in a sort of hardened plating that covers the living, fragile skin.  When you get callouses, somehow your skin reacts by thickening that layer of dead cells forming a coarse, even more resilient shell.  When that barrier is breached, the circulatory system forms it’s own barrier called a scab, which supports the skin until it can fill in underneath and repair itself.
    The muscular system is fascinating too.  Almost every motion in your body is caused by different combinations of contractions of muscles.  They just pull, they don’t push, twist or turn, they just tense.  The system of muscles tensing throughout your body can cause any number of athletic maneuvers, facial expressions and even vocal sounds merely by combinations of muscular contractions.  When muscles are contracted often, especially against resistance, they gather extra resources to rebuild themselves, they endure stress by burning (literally) their energy resources, so they realize that next time, they will need to be stronger.  They prepare for next time by strengthening themselves and bulking up for the next round.
    The human psyche can also endure large amounts of stress.  Adrenaline rushes speed the mind to superhero levels.  A policeman under fire for the first time described firing several shots and noticing exactly where each bullet hit, which under normal circumstances is absurd.  We can endure physical trauma, distress, torture, disease, death of loved ones, displacement, rejection, feelings of failure, doubt and lack of sleep, hopefully not all at once.  Somehow, we emerge stronger than before.  We survive.  We get knocked down.  We get back up again.  We struggle.  We suffer.  We come out more prepared for the next fight.
    There exists, somewhere, a breaking point, a point of no return.  For a ceramic mug, it comes pretty quickly.  Every little crack is a breaking point.  It may be superglued, but it will never really be the way it was.  For a human arm, a thousand cuts might be healed, but if the arm is severed at any point, if even a finger is cut off, it will not grow back.  The damage is permanent.  A pirate who loses his leg must make do with a peg.  The skin and bone will not return.  Enough radiation will cause a tan.  Too much will cause a burn.  Enough scraping will cause a callous.  Too much will cause bleeding.  A small cut will heal.  A large cut will scar.  Soldiers return from duty more disciplined and more prepared for the difficulties of civilian life.  But sometimes they get post traumatic stress disorder and just can’t handle it.
    Pain doesn’t always make us stronger.  We’re susceptible to permanent damage.  Life doesn’t have a respawn button.  Our bodies and minds are not completely in our control.  We can be overtaken and overpowered by any number of things.  Permanent damage is a big obstacle.  Invincibility would make everything so much easier.  But the stakes have been raised.  We’re playing for survival.  But that’s not right, because that’s a game we will all lose.  We’re playing for something more.  Somehow, we have to lose that game to win another.  We have to surrender to that darkness to see the dawn.  The weight of glory comes after a “light, momentary affliction.”  That light momentary affliction is breaking points and fear and death.  But “though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.”  I don’t know exactly which parts of me make up my inner self or what a weight of glory looks like but I know there’s something in the body’s healing process, there’s something in the magnificence of the forests and constellations, and there’s something in selfless virtue that’s worth a lot of pain and suffering.