The World Forgetting, by the World Forgot

Thanks to Jeanne (and by default, Cole), I have been listening to WNYC's Radiolab podcasts lately. So far, I've listened to the ones called "Choice," "Emergence," and "Memory and Forgetting." You should really check out the podcasts. They're about an hour long, so save it for the commute or something;) I'm not going to get into it completely but here's a quick recap:

"Choice"--through the exploration of several interesting scientific experiments--explores how the brain makes decisions, almost always influenced by external factors. The conclusion? "The notion of a conscious will is an illusion." I had some issues with this one, because I believed the experiments focused on solely sensory/empirically-based decisions, not ones in matters of relationships, politics or religion. But still an interesting one worth checking out.

"Emergence" explored the concept of spontaneous order, first focusing on an ant colony, of how complex order springs from a conglomeration of mindless, brainless insects, and then how different personalities of cities and local neighborhoods develop.

To me, the "Memory and Forgetting" podcast has proved the most interesting by far. They explore a series of memory experiments performed on rats. One of the scientists discovered that by introducing a drug at a specific moment when a memory is being created, that you can actually ERASE it. Even more intriguing is that AFTER the memory is being created, when the subject attempt to recall that memory, introduction of the drug at that specific moment of "memory creation" actually ERASES the memory pattern entirely.

WHAT?

One of my favorite films of all time is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a film built on the fictional premise that there is a medical clinic where you could go to in order to have memories--likely painful, hurtful ones--completely erased. However, I had always dismissed the idea of actually erasing specific memories as complete science fiction.

What the podcast revealed is that this movie was released two years after this scientist published his findings, that it is actually possible to erase a specific memory after it has been created. At one point, one of the podcasters says "An act of remembering is an act of creation," meaning, that there is no secret vault or brain RAM locked away inside of ourselves that hold a "true memory" of reality. Everytime we remember an event in the past, our brains are actually re-creating the memory, so that what we "remember" will never be completely accurate. And the specific drug inhibits this memory-creating process for that specific event, if the memory is tied to a specific impression or trigger. So the memory is essentially "erased," even though that terminology is slightly inaccurate.

The podcast also explores planting false memories (scary stuff) and included examples from law school of how faulty eyewitnesses can be.

Jodie and I tried to plant a false memory in Oscar last night. Didn't work.

The podcast concludes with a unique case of amnesia. Interesting story which, again, you can should check out when you've got the time...

Jeanne asked me if I would ever want to have painful memories erased, and what kind of person I think I would be if I were walking around with only happy memories. I've actually thought of this before because of the Eternal Sunshine movie, but I've always concluded that I would want all my memories intact, the lovely and the painful. Anything less would be a half-life.

Maybe that's simple, maybe that's naive, but eradicating any memory of suffering--in my opinion--would diminish the importance of joy. My pain and suffering--as minimal as it may be compared to others--in addition to the happy memories has made me into the person I am. Memories may be hard and painful but they belong to me.

Not to mention, there's something within me that rebels against that concept because throughout history, God has always emphasized the art of remembering. He commanded altars of remembrance everywhere along the 40-year trail of wandering among the Israelites. His prophets lamented how Israel had forgotten where they came from and who they are. Christ--breaking bread and pouring out wine said--"Do this in remembrance of Me." Christ, whose sole purpose in coming to earth was to redeem through suffering, some of His last words were essentially: "Remember...The good AND the bad."

There's a pattern of redemptive suffering in Christ's life that I'm still trying to work out the implications for in my own life.

And I need my memory in order to do that.

Dexter again

So I know I am going a tad blog-happy today. BUT. I had some more thoughts regarding Dexter that I did not comprehensively explore in my previous blog. I mentioned in a previous blog entry how the Seasons 1-3 compare:

Season 1 focused on Dexter the Monster and how he came to be. Season 2 focused on Dexter--still a Monster--but struggling for survival and learning to deal with the Dark Passenger. Season 3 has focused primarily on the corruption of the system, and how that begins in the monsters in the people around him, most obviously Miguel Prado. This season, more than any other season, I believe, has raised serious ethical questions on justification of murder, motive of the murderer and how the cause of justice becomes twisted to serve the Monster's own inner appetites.

The central themes of each of the two previous seasons culminated with the "Dexteration" of one of the characters that brought these themes to a head. In Season 1, Brian a.k.a. "Icey" serves as a foil to Dexter's Monster or Dark Passenger. We have the classic example of unrestrained freedom vs. freedom with restraint, the battle between the code of Harry and the codeless Icey. The tension between these two codes is battled out in Dexter, who ultimately chooses the Code of Harry over his own brother. And so, he kills Icey in the final act.

In Season 2, Dexter struggles to evade the law and simultaneously deals with his own frailty (evading capture) and humanity (evading his Dark Passenger). He considers abandoning his "code" altogether, and experiments with an "addiction-free life." This plot is moved further along with the introduction of Lila a.k.a. Pyro. However, Pyro turns out to be just as addicted as Dexter, and quite unable to manage Dexter's Dark Passenger, let alone her own, Pyro sets herself up to be the perfect candidate for Dexter's code. Solution: Dexteration. By syringe. In Paris.

Season 3, Dexter breaks new ground by not limiting himself to the code. In fact, he fights Harry all the while, who no longer appears in flashbacks, but in re-imagined conversations in Dex's head.

In Dexter, a clear pattern is emerging: The Code of Harry, which has ensured Dexter's survival is continually challenged, a plot which is brought to a head by the inclusion of an external character: Icey, Pyro and now Miguel. In the first season, Icey challenges the Code. In the second season, Dexter tries life without the Dark Passenger AND the subsequently the code for awhile, to no avail. In the third season, Dexter himself challenges the code, abandoning it and pushing the limits, which escalates with the character of Miguel Prado.

The central questions and intrigue to the remaining two episodes of Dexter Season 3 seem to be:

1) What effect will Miguel Prado ultimately have on Dexter's perception of Harry and the code? Dex touched on this briefly in the past episode. He seemed to recognize Harry's wisdom all along.

2) What kind of end will Miguel Prado meet, as we know he must inevitably? Will he fall victim to Dexter's knife just as Lila and Brian did? Or will he see justice served unto himself in a court of law?

3) Now that it seems that Dexter accepts the wisdom and value of the code, despite Harry's flawed parenting, what will that mean for Season 4 of Dexter?

4) I am still waiting for Debra or Rita (more Deb, than Rita, because I do not believe Rita could not handle the truth at this point) to discover Dexter's true identity. I cannot believe that the writers would have that much potential stored up for a revelation and not ever use it. This too, would affect Dexter's use of the code, although I'm not sure how. Harry obviously withheld the truth from Debra for his own reasons; however, would would the Jiminy Cricket Harry of Dexter's imagination say to him if Deb was in on the secret too? How would that affect Dex's code. Would it affect Dex's code?

5) Even though I am still wondering how the plot is going to resolve itself (i.e. how does Dex get away from the Skinner (I'm guessing Dex kills the Skinner and the law gets Miguel), how Miguel gets caught, what are all these loose plot ends that may need to be tied), I think I am most intrigued by how the events of Season 3 will shape Dexter's code, his perception of Harry, and how exactly Miguel meets his death.

Visualizing the Bible

Props to my band buddy Greg for posting this link. It's called "Visualizing the Bible" and National Geographic named this as one of the best science images of the year. The bar graph running across the bottom represents the 66 books of the Bible according to number of chapters. The lines extending back and forth represent the cross references in Scripture, demonstrating the "intertextuality" of Scripture, or "the shaping of text’s meanings by other texts." It's amazing how visually stunning this looks. Check it. And also check Greg's blog while you're at it;)

Dexter, Status, etc.

1) So I fixed Google Analytics on my blogger page this week. What can I say, I like to stalk you people who stalk my blog and don't leave comments;) I think the new layout helped with the HTML code problem I was having. So I hope you enjoy the new layout (I will continue to tweak it I think, although I'm sad to say goodbye to Oscar's Happy Yeti in a Cave). And hopefully this will motivate me to be a more faithful blogger. Sometimes it's easy to get discouraged in blogging when I don't think people are really reading. Comments and Google Analytics keeps me motivated to more consistently blog, so here's to more of that...:)

2) Status was muy interesante tonight. Kate spoke this week--the one who's been basically coercing me into/keeping me accountable for finishing The Brothers Karamazov;) She spoke on issues I have definitely not heard from a pulpit or a stage auditorium or even a rebellious emerging church book before. Probably the only forum I've heard dare broach this topic is an occasional facebook note from one of my peers.

Basically, Kate took the opportunity to re-imagine the monologue that led to the martyrdom of Stephen, as chronicled in Acts 6 and 7. Stephen speaks the history of the Israelite nation back to the Jews, a tale well-worn but perhaps gone stale from dry, rote recitation and familiarity. She boldly re-imagined the conversation for American Christians in the 21st century, challenging us to consider what cultural blinders we have on today that prevent us from truly having our "faith expressed in love." The topics were not easy and I do not envy her in bringing forth that conversation in so public an arena. Yet, these things must be discussed: the stigma attached to gay marriage and abortion within conservative evangelical circles.

In the recent election, Florida voters recently voted to recognize marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, upholding a "traditional" view of marriage. Politics is a strange animal, because the passionate opinions and often intensely personal ideals fueling the political machine completely eradicate any relational element from the process. In confirming Amendment Two, Floridian voters had the luxury of imposing morality on a certain demographic without any relationship occurring. This is something I have been pondering ever since I listened to Cole's oof podcast on Libertarianism and Socialism. He pointed out that the reason socialism doesn't work is that it takes a very benevolent, altruistic concept--redistributing wealth among the poor--almost mirroring the Christian ideals --and divorces it from the relational element, the very thing Christ came--as a Man no less--to restore. Socialism quite closely approaches the nature of the kingdom of God, then completely abandons it by the lack of freedom and free will attached to it.

In the same way, this recent amendment that was passed was based on a good intention to endorse a concept that does approach the kingdom of God--reconciling a lifestyle with an ideal--but in legislating this concept, it completely alienates the one against whom the law was intended. All within a non-relational context. By eliminating relationship from the process, the motivation propelling the amendment nullifies the very thing it set out to restore--a relationship.

It's one thing to check off a morality police box. It's quite a different thing to have a loving relationship with someone within that lifestyle.

Ever since I read Philip Yancey's The Jesus I Never Knew, I have been wrestling with the concept of what Jesus truly dealt with when He was tempted in the desert: He rejected the temptation to fall back on His divinity as a means to escape suffering. That in itself is a concept that could take years for one soul to truly work through. But Jesus also rejected political power, an idea which the American church at large MUST deal with, if we are truly going to follow Christ and be His bride, the way the early church in Acts was. They rescued babies from the rocks; they didn't hold picket signs outside the temple of Artemis. They fed and clothed the sick; they didn't walk by and say "That's terrible" and then sit back in apathy. Neither blind apathy nor intolerant legalism have no place within the kingdom of God.

These are ideas I continue to wrestle with, because they intersect with decisions I make about how I align my life with the kingdom of Christ.... Needless to say, I am glad Kate brought up these issues. I really appreciate how it wasn't necessarily this mind-blowing conversation, but a real, engaging, thoughtful opportunity to deal with some hard truths about the church and ourselves, while leaving room for the Spirit to move an act out in our conversations and processing. It's easy to talk theology about how things ought to be. It's a very different concept to live out a life and make decisions based on truth that's been internalized in this manner...

3) Dexter commentary: Only 2 episodes left! I probably have much more to say on this past episode, but I WILL throw this one conjecture out there. Up until tonight, I had fully assumed Dexter would, as I like to say "Dexter" Miguel, or finish him off with the usual rubber gloves, apron, plastically decked out venue with a blade of his choice. This, after all, is the typical fashion in which the writers have brilliantly chosen to dispose of the two characters thus far who have been able to see and embrace Dexter as he is.

But now I'm seriously wondering how poetic it would be if Miguel were sentenced by the flawed legal system he had come to despise, if that corrupt legal machine were actually to get the better of him and for once, administer justice to the one who so clearly invites and taunts it. A huge part of me is hoping that LaGuerta figures out Miguel is the murderer and nails him fair and square, the old-fashioned way with indisputable evidence in a court of law. This would be the perfect end for a man who used justice as a platform for his own base, sinister desires.

Contemplation

So I'm in the middle of reading the Brothers Karamazov. It's been such an interesting character/ideology study so far. I'm only about a third of the way through at this point, but this passage stood out to me for some reason. Smerdyakov, the old servant's son (or so we think) has begun to show his proud, insolent side, and Fyodor (the old, drunk buffoon father whom I'm assuming is going to eventually be whacked by one of his three very different, very complex sons) is definitely insulting him. The narrator describes Smerdyakov's tendency to become lost in thought:

"There is a remarkable picture by the painter Kramskoy, called "Contemplation." There is a forest in winter, and on a roadway through the forest, in absolute solitude, stands a peasant in a torn kaftan and bark shoes. He stands, as it were, lost in thought. Yet he is not thinking; he is "contemplating." If anyone touched him he would start and look at one as though awakening and bewildered. It's true he would come to himself immediately; but if he were asked what he had been thinking about, he would remember nothing. Yet probably he has hidden within himself, the impression which had dominated him during the period of contemplation. Those impressions are dear to him and no doubt he hoards them imperceptibly, and even unconsciously. How and why, of course, he does not know either. He may suddenly, after hoarding impressions for many years, abandon everything and go off to Jerusalem on a pilgrimage for his soul's salvation, or perhaps he will suddenly set fire to his native village, and perhaps do both. There are a good many "contemplatives" among the peasantry. Well, Smerdyakov was probably one of them, and probably was greedily hoarding up his impressions, hardly knowing why."

I don't know how crucial this passage is going to be in the grand scheme of the book, but I really liked this section for some reason.

Dexter blog revived

After a long hiatus from blogging about anything Dexter-related, I am resuming.

To be honest, I had been more or less disappointed with Season 3 thus far. I should know by now that the whole structure of a Dexter season is about 66% plot set up and about 33% pay off. The problem is, with the previous seasons, the writers tossed us a bone or two much earlier in the season, rather than waiting until practically the last minute.

What I like most about this season, is that the past couple of episodes have been quite relevatory of Miguel Prado's true nature, forcing us, the viewers to shed whatever preconceptions or assumptions we had about Miguel. Now, we're forced to look back in hindsight and look at Miguel through a new set of lenses. I haven't wanted to go back and totally dissect and analyze an entire character arc since President Logan in Season 5 of 24. I want to see how the development of the character Prado has contributed to the plot set-up..

The season has gotten much more interesting as we delve further and further into the character of Miguel Prado. Up until this point, we've been led to believe that Miguel was a bit of an overzealous, self-proclaimed member of the Justice League, irked by the depravity of the system and justifiably ridding Miami of the scum of the earth. Now we realize more than ever how dark and twisted Miguel's true nature is.

One of the most interesting things about this season has been the disruption and apparent reinvention of Harry's code. Season 2 left us with the impression that Dexter, jaded by Harry's inability to handle the "monster he had created," would abandon the code in new ways.

1) He abandoned the code first--albeit inadvertently--in the first killing of Oscar Prado, the main impetus for Season 3's plot arc. He killed someone spontaneously without any assurance of guilt.
2) He intentionally abandoned his code yet again with the whole key lime pie incident with Camilla. Again, the ethical lines are blurred as the show tangles with question of euthanasia. Also, the episode turned me off to key lime entirely. And I wasn't a huge fan to begin with.
3) He breaks the code yet again by tag teaming with Miguel Prado.
4) Dexter seems to be ignoring the Skinner completely, which would seem to be the most natural choice of prey for Dexter.

I mentioned this in a previous Season 2 blog, but it seems that any time someone who comes along and at least partially recognizes Dexter for who he is: Brian, Lila and now Miguel, they are always at odds with Dexter's code in some way and Dexter inevitably ends up killing them. I see no other path for Miguel, other than this ending him in being Dextered.

Interestingly enough, I think this season more than any other season has explored--not so much the darkness (or Dark Passenger) within Dexter himself, but rather in those around him. Season 1 focused on Dexter the Monster and how he came to be. Season 2 focused on Dexter--still a Monster--but struggling for survival and learning to deal with the Dark Passenger. Season 3 has focused primarily on the corruption of the system, and how that begins in the monsters in the people around him, most obviously Miguel Prado. This season, more than any other season, I believe, has raised serious ethical questions on justification of murder, motive of the murderer and how the cause of justice becomes twisted to serve the Monster's own inner appetites.

Some interesting plot points/questions to consider:

1) At what point did Miguel become aware of Dexter's true nature? Was this immediately after Oscar Prado was killed? Or was it after he stumbled upon Dexter killing Freebo?
2) Has Miguel figured out that Dexter is the Bay Harbor Butcher? This seems reasonable to assume. His close relationship with LaGuerta may bring about some hidden connection Miguel may have with Doakes. Miguel may have known all along that Doakes was not the Bay Harbor Butcher.
3) Is there a deeper connection between the Skinner and Miguel? We are assuming at this juncture that the Skinner wants nothing more than to settle the score with Freebo. His chosen victims all have a link to Freebo. If Skinner finds out that Freebo is already dead, how would that change his motivation to kill?
4) Since it appears that Miguel has been manipulating Dexter all along, what is his end goal with Dexter? Of course, we are assuming that he wanted all along to learn the ropes from Dexter, but something tells me there is more to it than that.
5) What is the true line that separates Miguel from Dexter? Most obviously, the code separates them, but they seem to now be motivated by an insatiable need to kill. Miguel seems enthralled with the power trip it brings, while Dexter, it's an appetite that needs to be sated every now and then. Miguel is hotheaded, driven by personal agenda--seen best in his crusade against Ellen Wolf. Dexter never makes things personal. His victims are carefully, coolly chosen.
6) Why has Dexter not gone after the Skinner at all? He's been so distracted with Miguel this season, it never crossed his mind to hunt the Skinner down. Very odd. I wonder if that will change.
7) What did Miguel do when he was along with King? I wouldn't put it past him if he let King escape somehow so he could kill him himself.
8) LaGuerta is obviously going to become more important to the climax. How and to what end will Miguel manipulate her? I think it's safe to say he already has...
9) Where's my favorite crucial plot point music? Come on, writers...:(

So, although this season may not be the most quotable or thrilling, I have to give the writers major props for making it the most complex and interesting season in terms of ethical questions raised. The constant scenes with Harry, the juxtaposition of Dexter's nightly extracurricular activities with a wedding and baby on the way. Miguel and the Skinner playing the foil to Dexter. So many plot intricacies to consider...

My First 10K

Back from a long hiatus of uninspired blogging, I finally found something I believe is blog worthy...

I finished my first ever 10K on Sunday. Jeanne, Dana and I ran in the Florida Hospital 10K in Celebration. I had often attended these running events as a supporting friend or family member when my dad has run his marathons or Paige has run her half marathons.

This time, I attended as a runner, which was a huge accomplishment to me. If you told me 4 months ago I would be running a 10K, I would have laughed in your face. (And if you know me, you know that's true...;)

In preparation for this 10K, Jeanne and I had been following Hal Higdon's Novice 10K training program, although we modified it to suit our needs. For instance, I was not cool with following a training schedule that didn't even have me run 6 miles at ALL prior to the race, so we definitely incorporated that into the schedule. Also, the second to last week--supposedly the most rigorous week in which you're supposed to push yourself--I ran 6 miles on Sunday, 5 on Tuesday, then approximately 6 miles again in Seattle. Also, I know averaging 11 minute miles is really slow, but my main goal in running this was to simply run from start to finish without stopping. I think now that I've finished a 10K, if I ever do one again, I would work harder at improving my time.

I discovered a few things while training that last week.

-First of all, I LOVE running in the cold. When we had that cold snap in central Florida on Tuesday morning, I feel like I could run forever. That theory was further confirmed when we went running in Seattle. I don't know why, but I feel much better running in 50 degrees, or even upper 40s as opposed to upper 70s or lower 80s. That Sunday I ran with Jeanne, I had a ROUGH time, mostly because a) I'm not used to running around lots of cars and traffic b)The sun was beating down and there was no shade c) I was not familiar with the route. It's so interesting how so many factors play into whether or not you have a good run.

Running Seattle was by far the best experience for me. Jeanne and I ran a trail that runs next to the University of Washington campus. The first couple of miles were lovely, running on a trail with a canopy of yellow and red autumn leaves over us. Then the trail took us by the river and under some cool footbridges. The route was incredibly scenic and I had Death Cab for a Cutie's "Plans" to keep me pumping for nearly an hour. Good memories of running in Seattle:)

-Also, I discovered DURING the race that I actually can run and talk at the same time. Whenever Jeanne and I have run together, we both put on our iPod headphones and barely talk to each other, except for pointing out something funny every now and then. Also, Jeanne likes to run like Dwight from the Office occasionally, which always makes for good entertainment.

Dana joined us for the 10K, and she is a huge proponent of talking. I found that although it was difficult to sustain talking toward the end of the race, it made the first 3-4 miles incredibly enjoyable. I didn't need to use my headphones for the entire race. And now I have a new friend:)

-I was intrigued by the competitive speed walking which sounds as legit as Olympic curling, but I was further shamed when a few overzealous competitive speed walkers actually PASSED us, we who were running. So I stand corrected.

-I had hoped somebody would have shot a gun into the sky to start the race. That was my wish. Sadly, that did not happen.

-Also, I wore my lucky pants. They haven't failed me yet. See below:)