Eric Grunzke

American V: A Hundred Highways

nospam@example.com (Eric Grunzke) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:11:00 -0400

I don't like country music. I'm not sure why, but something about the sound just doesn't do it for me. That said, I recently picked up a copy of American V: A Hundred Highways by Johnny Cash, and, much to my surprise, it's superb. I realize that this admission will make me sound like an uncultured fool, and maybe I am, but I don't even like Cash's classics; I fail to connect with songs like Walk the Line, Folsom Prison Blues, A Boy Named Sue, or Man in Black.

American V is different, though. Created from his final sessions (most of the material was recorded in his own home), the album wasn't even released until nearly 3 years after he passed away. Though it certainly received extra attention because of its posthumous release, it's impossible to listen to the album without the knowledge that Cash was nearing the end. He sounds decidedly old and ailing, which is understandable because of his health, but surprising in that is adds an incredible vulnerability to his delivery.

The tracks are diverse, from the bluesy groove in Like the 309 to the anthemic stomp-clap of God's Gonna Cut You Down to the tearful lyrics in On the Evening Train, but Cash never fails to establish a sense of genuine emotion. The themes of religion and the finality of death are inescapable, but the mood, while somber, never sinks to despair. Intimate and authentic, his final reflections reach out from beyond the grave to fittingly conclude his illustrious career.

-Eric

You know that ghost is me

Small Talk

nospam@example.com (Eric Grunzke) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:13:24 -0500

I've been slowly working my way through Letters by a Modern Mystic, a truly fascinating book documenting author Frank Laubach's quest for spiritual fulfillment. Laubach's letters are consistently genuine, thought-provoking exercises in purposeful introspection, but this quotation stood out even among his own insight:

In defense of my opening my soul and laying it bare to the public gaze in this fashion, I may say that it seems to me that we really seldom do anybody much good except as we share the deepest experiences of our souls in this way. It is not the fashion to tell your inmost thoughts but there are many wrong fashions, and concealment of the best in us is wrong. I disapprove of the usual practice of talking "small talk" whenever we meet, and holding a veil over our souls. If we are so impoverished that we have nothing to reveal but small talk, then we need to struggle for more richness of soul. As for me, I am convinced that this spiritual pilgrimage which I am making is infinitely worthwhile, the most important thing I know of to talk about. And talk I shall while there is anybody to listen. And I hunger -- O how I hunger! for others to tell me their soul adventures.
-Frank Laubach

Wow. How much time do I waste with small talk? Or, more importantly, how many people have I failed to connect with because all we did was talk about the weather? Politics, religion, relationships: all the topics that are the most interesting and revealing, topics that would forge actual kinship, are considered indecorous. Consequently, when I meet somebody new, we follow the established social pattern, navigating among safe topics until a sufficient amount of time has passed for us to part without affront. This is hardly fulfilling, so why do we do it?

I hypothesize that this veiling of our souls is the result of insecurity. The human fear of judgment or rejection is surprisingly and irrationally powerful. If I open a conversation and try to talk about religion, I may offend somebody, and if I do, one of two things can happen: he may reject me over our differences, or he may feel that I'm judging him for the same reason. I have little control over the former, but a respectful tone and a genuine nature should be sufficiently negate the latter. As such, the only real danger in opening my soul is the possibility that somebody might decide that I'm crazy, stupid, or unworthy. Is that fear of rejection compelling? Wouldn't the benefits of having stimulating, genuine interaction with some people outweigh the loss of frivolous time-filler with others?

Everywhere people are beautiful or at least they have a beautiful side. On the boat from Manila last week was a painted woman, alone. I spoke to her because she was lonesome. Three of the ship's officers nearby tittered as though they thought a scandal was brewing, so I talked loud enough for them to hear. I told her I was looking for God. As naturally as a preacher she replied, "God is everywhere around us and in us if we only open our eyes. All the world is beautiful if we have eyes to see the beauty, for the world is packed with God." "Thank you for that," I said, "I love it! What are you going to Cebu for?" "To put on my special act. You see I dance before seven mirrors. Nobody else, so far as I know, in the world, has just this act. I am traveling alone, making my own engagements, for it is too expensive to have a property man. I was treated wonderfully well through India, wonderfully well!" I liked the way she pronounced that word, and the memories which lingered in her tired eyes. "And many people in Manila wrote me lovely letters, asking me to come back. Oh, the world is full of good people, full of good people." When the dinner bell rang I said, "I am going about the world trying to find wonderful hours, and I shall remember this as one of them.

It would be difficult to conceive of a more awkward social scenario than a missionary talking to a prostitute, yet Laubach is undaunted, and I cannot stop thinking of how I can emulate his certitude. What can I change? How can I cut through social formalities and really talk to people? When somebody asks me "how's it going?" I don't want to respond with "good" any more. So I'm making a conscious, deliberate effort to abstain from small talk, to instead say "Great! I had a sweet devotional this morning," or "You know, I had a really interesting conversation with a total stranger, and my day has been happy ever since," or even "It's funny you should ask, 'cause I'm reading this book, and it mentions small talk..."

-Eric

We learned so much about ourselves

Faith and Reason

nospam@example.com (Eric Grunzke) — Wed, 30 May 2007 20:46:00 -0400

It is undeniable that the prevailing opinion in modern America is that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. We live in an era of unprecedented scientific advancement. The advent of electronics has paved the way for massive breakthroughs in nearly all fields of science, the impact of which are rivaled only by the scientific revolution itself. At our current rate of progress, a single lifetime is sufficiently long to observe radical change in world: my grandfather's life as a 23 year old was certainly different than mine is now. Regrettably, however, as our knowledge of the universe increases, so does the notion that logic necessitates the abandonment of religious beliefs.

I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.
-René Descartes

Permit me a question, if you will: is the sum total of knowledge, of all science in the universe finite? Given enough time and enough resources, will we as a race eventually discover and explain every aspect of the natural order? Or will there always be another level of precision to unravel? It is certainly observable that every recent scientific discovery has presented us with more questions, and it is my contention that we will never be able to fully understand the universe we live in. Is this any more ridiculous than the suggestion that we will one day be an omniscient race? The pattern of all known scientific discovery lends itself more easily to my claim than the counter.

I must remain consistent with my defense of reason, however, so I will begin by assuming that the Naturalist view is correct: knowledge is finite, and every event in the universe can be explained scientifically. Logically speaking, a single counterexample, any one event that can not be explained by science, is sufficient proof to destroy the Naturalistic worldview. The notion that some observable phenomena are impossible to prove already exists in the scientific community - see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I, however, seek to expose a contradiction in a much more fundamental concept: our ability to think.

Certainly sentience is the single characteristic that distinguishes humans from all other known life. Our ability to reason, to draw conclusions from observation is what separates us from simple animals. While I'm loathe to cite it as anything other than entertainment, The Matrix has brought to the masses the idea that our five senses could be fooled, at which point we are forced to admit that observation of an event is insufficient as proof of the event. Instead, truth is validated by reason, by our ability to think and infer and prove. Indeed, Descartes' famous assertion of "I think therefore I am" is a cornerstone of Western philosophy.

Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe.
-C.S. Lewis

Thoughts, then, are the building blocks from which all other truths are constructed. Further, since we are to use them in defense of other events, we must regard thoughts themselves as natural. This presents the cardinal difficulty with Naturalism: the origin of thought. If all events must be explainable, and thoughts are the only viable means of explanation, then how can we explain, naturally, the first thought? All events prior to it are indefensible, because thought did not exist to validate them. The simple and immediate response is that the first thought "just happened," which is to say that it cannot be explained, because the only acceptable cause would be another thought. This admission is a supernatural one - the first thought must have arisen from some means that cannot be explained naturally.

Indeed, from this point many theories present themselves, but they are beyond the scopes of this article. My primary objective is to show that belief in a Supernatural event (in this case, the emergence of sentient thought) does not inherently contradict science - that faith and reason can coexist. My argument does not prove religion as truth, but it does succeed in allowing me to be both a scientist and a man of spiritual convictions. The assumption that faith is a crutch for the weak minded is foolish: every man places his faith in something. The claim that an athiest's faith in science is fundamentally more legitimate than my faith in religion is, ironically, illogical.

-Eric

These thoughts I've held in failure; My paper champion, false savior

Attention Media: Stop Legitimizing Terrorists!

nospam@example.com (Eric Grunzke) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:14:00 -0400

You'll likely remember where you were when you first heard about the Virginia Tech massacre for the rest of your life. I know I will; I was on vacation, visiting my sister in Manhattan when the news of the single deadliest shooting in the history of the United States reached me. It was immediately disturbing to me, certainly, but the tragedy didn't truly become real to me until the next day.

As I sat in the LaGuardia Airport, waiting for my flight home, I watched CNN air stories told by students who had survived, and the dreadful realization finally caught up with me: these were real people. An absurdly obvious revelation intellectually, it wasn't until that moment that the emotional impact moved from abstract and distant into actual and personal for me. The victims could just as easily have been my friends or my family. Even now, their facebook profiles and myspace pages stand silent, providing mute testament to the terrible loss of life.

"Oh Lauren please call someone. We are so worried about you."
-Found on a victim's myspace

The reaction to any crisis of this magnitude is the same: How did this happen? Why did he do it? What can we do to prevent this from happening again? It is the media's role in the latter that I wish to address specifically. As you probably already know, Cho Seung-Hui sent a multimedia manifesto to NBC, containing an 1800 word statement, 27 videos, and dozens of photographs of himself wielding the guns he would use to kill so many.

It is my position that NBC's decision to air these materials constitutes an egregious offense against human decency and journalistic integrity. By allowing his insane, self-indulgent diatribes to receive widespread publicity, the media has legitimized Cho Seung-Hui's actions. He wanted to be heard, and he got it. This sets a terribly dangerous precedent: other killers see this and think "If I kill enough people, then my message will be heard, too."

Once NBC realized what that package contained, they should have immediately turned it over to the police for psychological analysis. Instead, they chose to air it, encouraging potential terrorists with the implicit promise of international notoriety, and for what? Ratings. The media aired the ramblings of a psychotic killer in order to make a few extra bucks. When copycat incidents result in more death, the media executives will have a share of that blood on their hands.

Cho Seung-Hui's words should never have been given an audience.

-Eric

These cries, this agony, injustices, suffering

Jim and Pam Should Not Get Together

nospam@example.com (Eric Grunzke) — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:11:00 -0400

Yes, that's correct. I believe that Jim and Pam should not get together. Ever. But before I convince you of this stance by using an amazing combination of logic, analysis, and personal experience, some background is in order for those who are unfamiliar with the show. The embedded video is a four-minute promotional by NBC that will familiarize you with the plot so far.

To summarize:

Jim and Pam - Destined?

Jim and Pam work together. Jim likes Pam.
Pam is engaged to Roy, who is a chode.
Jim and Pam flirt lots, but it goes nowhere, because of Roy.
Jim finally comes clean with Pam, kisses her. She rejects him.
Jim accepts a promotion at a new branch. He moves on.
Pam breaks her engagement because she's hot for Jim.
Jim meets Karen at the new office. Karen is fun, hot, and available.
The two branches merge, reuniting Jim and Pam. Pam is still hot for Jim.
Jim starts dating Karen, so Pam waffles with getting back together with Roy.
We now have the love quadrangle: Jim, Pam, Roy, and Karen all working together.

Are you with me? Good. The writers have done an excellent job of creating a realistic, believable story to date. In fact, my beef is not with the writers, but with the viewers. There's an overwhelming opinion that Jim and Pam need to get together, because "they're meant to be" or some other garbage. The vehemence with which my sister hates Karen is impressive. "You like Karen?!" she cries. "She's a man! She's ugly! That skank needs to get her filthy paws off of Jim!" This is not an exaggeration, and Gretchen speaks for most of the show's female audience. The prevailing attitude is that Jim and Pam are star-struck lovers, and they will ultimately find each other in the end.

Karen: Not ugly, not a man.

If The Office were a feel-good romantic comedy starring Jennifer Anniston then yes, that's how it should end. But it's not. One of the greatest strengths of The Office is its simplicity: the show has real characters with real jobs and real problems. This isn't a crazy sitcom where ridiculous situations are crafted for laughs. The genius of The Office lies in how ordinary the exposition is. We feel attached to the characters because they aren't that different from us, and that sameness ties us to them.

This brings me to a story from personal experience. Not unlike Jim, I was very much into a girl who, at the time, was already seeing somebody else. We hung out a lot, and I felt like there was a real connection. She broke up with her boyfriend, and I asked her out a few months later. She turned me down. I appreciated her honesty, and we're friends to this day, but that's the end of the story for me. While I still find her attractive, I won't make another move because the ball is in her court. Asking her out again not only jeopardizes our current relationship, it indicates that I'm desperate - that I insist on clinging to my feelings for her. Ladies, you've all had that guy who just wouldn't leave you alone. Isn't he annoying? Isn't he pathetic?

I am not that guy, and Jim is not that guy. If my friend wants to become romantically involved with me, she has to make the move. The same goes for Pam. The problem here is that Pam missed her chance. She canceled the wedding, and in her mind Jim would immediately swoop in and sweep her off her feet. Only, Jim didn't crawl back; he moved on. He started dating Karen, or the "New Hotness," as I call her. So Pam got back with Roy. Kinda. And then redumped him. Sorta. And then got back with him again. Maybe.

And therein lies the great crux of the situation: viewers are frustrated with Jim for not trying to get back with Pam, but they hate Roy for getting in the way. But wait! Think about it from the perspective of the characters: Jim and Roy are very much the same! Both like Pam; both were rejected. If Jim makes another move, he's romantic, but if Roy makes another move, he's a jerk! See that? It's a double standard. Let me say that again. It's a double standard. This is an effect not lost on the writers. "You should talk to Roy," Michael tells Jim. "He knows exactly what you're going through."

Jim and Pam should not get together because it would contradict Jim's character, and it would violate one of the basic tenants of the show: realism. A romantic likes to believe that she can treat a guy like crap, change her mind, and conveniently find him standing outside her apartment in the rain. That's very romantic, very sexy, but not real. In the real world, if you treat a guy like Pam treated Jim (flirting constantly, leading him on, admitting that you want to kiss him, rejecting him anyway, and never attempting to reconnect), the guy moves on to someone who is honest with him and treats him with respect. Someone like Karen.

-Eric

Say now you loved me all along?