The Parable of the Wooden Spoons

This is not a Ryan original, but it is one of my favorite parables of all time about a motto that I have learned to follow: serving one another. I suck at it, but I'm learning.
A holy man was having a conversation with the Lord one day and said, "Lord, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like." The Lord led the holy man to two doors. He opened one of the doors and the holy man looked in.
In the middle of the room was a large round table. In the middle of the table was a large pot of stew which smelled delicious and made the holy man's mouth water. The people sitting around the table were thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished.
They were holding spoons with very long handles and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful, but because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths. The holy man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering. The Lord said, "You have seen Hell."
They went to the next room and opened the door. It was exactly the same as the first one. There was the large round table with the large pot of stew which made the holy man's mouth water. The people were equipped with the same long-handled spoons, but here the people were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.
The holy man said, "I don't understand."
"It is simple" said the Lord, "it requires but one skill. You see, they have learned to serve each other."

Who Am I?

I was walking into work last week, and for some reason I was thinking about how the average job interview process is lame - for the most part. How does someone describe themselves? "Tell me about yourself." "What are your strengths and weaknesses." Etc, etc. I don't think it is possible to say "who you are." A description of "who I am" is like describing a photograph: its static. I can vaguely describe my appearance in terms of measurements and colors and ideas of relativity, but how does one accurately describe "who they are"?
"WHO I AM" isn't consistent. Who I am changes. It is not static. I can maybe tell you about who I was or who I want to be, but not who I am. Unless you want me to tell you who I am right this second. I can do that. But that won't do you, or I, or anyone else any good two second from now. My point is, who I am changes every day as I take on new knowledge and experiences. Who I am also changes, to a certain extent, based on my environment or situation.
One could argue that we are the same person no matter where we are - and I can see that argument - but I'm talking more about the outward behavior part of who I am. In other words, the part that people see. Call it the part that would make you decide if you would want to be my friend or not. For example, even though I am the same person everywhere, I am different at church than I am at a bar on New Years Eve. I don't mean to suggest that I have dissociative identity disorder (DID, f/k/a Multiple Personality Disorder), just that the context/situation I am in somewhat dictates how I behave.
This reminds me of the Nature vs. Nurture debate: are we who we are? Or are we 'trained' to be a certain way? Are we strongly influenced by our environment. For those of you who took Psychology 101, you may remember the similar debate about personality traits. The "Big 5" personality traits are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. These have been analyzed, studied, and debated for years, but have held up remarkably well in our disposable world. Take each of the big five:
Openness: would I be as OPEN in a job interview as I would be with my best friend of 40 years?
Conscientiousness: would I be as conscientious with my brother as I would be on a third date with a woman I really liked?
Extraversion: would I be as extraverted in line at the DMV as I would at my 21st birthday party?
Abreeableness: would I be as agreeable in divorce court as I would be on my wedding day?
I would answer "NO" quite emphatically to each of those questions; I don't know about you.
So, I am assuming at this point we can agree that "personality" - at least to a certain extent - can change based on situations or context. Included in that - and where I'm heading - is the area of context that includes people. Let me explain:
I think specifically which people we are with, more than any other factor of context, determines our behavior - our personality - more than any other factor, such as time, location, etc, etc. Who am I with? Who is around me? Who am I interacting with? If I am a soldier in Iraq, I would probably act much differently with my comrades in the middle of the desert than in the middle of town, because there are other people present. Or even the same town at night versus during the middle of the day when people are walking around. Many of the environmental factors may have changed, yet its the people that would most affect my behavior.
Who I am is not something necessarily within me - at least operationally speaking. I (and therefore you) cannot "measure" who I am within my own head. I may be able to think it or say it, but until it is exihibited, it just isn't. It doesn't exist. It cannot be measureable. Further, who I am is only measureable by some other person. Its relative and relational. Read that again: RELATIVE and RELATIONAL. Look at the BIG FIVE personality traist above again. ALL FIVE are relational and relative. I would include other so-called personality traits like honesty, trustworthyness, funny, caring, etc, etc to be the same.
RELATIONAL:
Relational, to me, means that each of the personality traits cannot be experienced in a vacuum by myself. I cannot be agreeable to myself. I cannot be open to experiencing myself, because I am me. I cannot be dishonest to myself, because I know what I know. All of these traits must include another person. They can only be measured as they are exhibited within a relationship. They ARE the relationship.
RELATIVE:
Relative, because they are all abstract terms without measurement. Of course you could measure the percentage of time someone is honest versus not honest - or you could try - but there is no absolute scale for conscientiousness or neuroticism. All of the traits are on open ended spectrums with no set endpoints or even relative range. The relativity comes from our personal experience, meaning Person A is more agreeable than Person B. Person C is less extroverted than Person D. We continue to place people on multiple spectrums all based on our experience. But since our experiences/pasts are different, "WHO I AM" is going to be different to everyone since everyones' spectrums are different.
One of my favorite person examples of this is from college - though the same can be said for bosses at work or friends of friends: when scheduling classes for the upcoming semester, I would have acquaintences that would compare courses and professors. I often heard a phrase like, "Ooh. Don't take that professor, he/she's really tough/mean/bad/dumb/[insert favorite negative personality trait here]." More often than not (roughly 100% of the time), those professors were my favorite professor of that semester. There is a lot to be said for that - many different variables and factors - but my point is, how can I base my opinion of anyone on a third party's opinion? Or rather, how should I? Or even better, why would I? when I know that personalities are relational and relative. Who someone is to me will be much different that who someone is to another person. Our "relationship" - which is what I call that space "between" two people - is unique to those two people. Its a constant give and take of information/communication/behavior. Its a "dance", if you will.
So, who am I? You may all call me Ryan, but I am somebody different to each one of you. I am who I am to you. And you are who you are to me. We are.... we.

"I'm sorry"

I apologize in advance that this entry is pathetically similar to the "love" entry I wrote just a few days ago, but...

Why do people get so hung up on hearing the words, "I'm sorry." I, for one, do not. But many people do; they cannot function in a relationship after a disagreement/fight/problem until they hear those words. Sincere or not, does hearing those words make everything better? Can people not function or forgive without those words? Does saying those words "earn" the right to be treated normal again solely because those words were uttered? Is it that simple?

Parents "force" their children to apologize after doing something wrong. The children learn to say "I'm sorry" to get out of a timeout, do be able to play again, to earn their treat back, but do they really mean it? Are they sincere? Do they really grasp the idea of remorse and forgiveness?

Me? I prefer someone to SHOW me they are sorry. Saying you're sorry is fine and dandy, and I appreciate the gesture, but talk is cheap. SHOW me you are sorry by your actions. Show me you are remorseful and that you are making strides to prevent the same infraction from happeneing again in the future. Show me you are humbled and earn my trust back. Saying you're sorry only shows me you have manners, and as a wise man once told me, "manners are a just a social lubricant." Manners are great, but they're not as great as a loyal, trustworthy friend.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many times you err and ask for forgiveness, I will always forgive you - that's not the issue - but there comes a time where I will cut my losses and just stop being around you. I forgive you and love you as a brother, but I don't care to be around you because you make me something other than happy.

Crooked Parking

Scenario: You (someone) are circling a parking lot to find a parking stall near a store you are about to enter. The open spot closest to the store (by about 10 spots) is flanked by two cars that are both parked crooked so that their right wheels are over the yellow line to their right. So the car to the left of your spot has its right wheels in "your" open stall. BUT, because the car on the right side also parked on the far right of their stall, there is ample room for you to park there. If you're like the old me, you grumble to yourself about how stupid people can be, but since there is room you decide to pull into that spot - instead of parking 10 stalls farther away from the store - despite the fact that now your right wheels will be over the yellow line too.

At this point, are you any better than the two cars you were grumbling about?

I say, "No." Parking crooked is only going to perpetuate crooked parking for a longer period of time.

Have you considered that these two cars may have parked crooked ONLY because the cars that were there before them were crooked? Have you also considered that when you get out of the store, these two cars will be gone and you will be the "stupid person" who parked crooked? Did you consider that if you would have just parked 10 spots down in the first place, straight parking may have been restored to the entire row after the two crooked cars left?

Now I ask you to think about how this situation may relate to human nature, feedback loops, and change. How do our behaviors in our environments either promote or prohibit change for the betterment or detriment of our environment? Are we satisfied with playing the role of the "grumbler" or would we prefer to be the "changer for better"?

I will be a changer, thank you.

The Last Supper?

I was eating lunch today at a local establishment - a diner with a lot of old pop culture posters - when my eyes stumbled upon the above picture. As you probably know, it is a parody on Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" (of Jesus surrounded by his 12 Apostles).

Admittedly, I had the slightest "reaction" to seeing it. Although not severe, my reaction was just slightly on the negative side of neutral. I have often been fascinated with the original "Last Supper" because of its beauty and all of the question marks surrounding its meanings, such as the faces, the postures, the order, and the background. Obviously I am not the only person who has had some kind of reaction to the original: (see a blog that has collected many different parodies at http://culturepopped.blogspot.com/2007/04/suddenly-last-supper.html)

As far as I know, da Vinci's work was a "tribute" or sign of respect (as a gift to aristocracy) or at least to be looked at in a positive light by Christians. It wasn't to mock or ridicule by any means.

I found it interesting that someone thought it was a good idea to replace the figures with actors instead of Jesus and the Apostles. I find it even more interesting that a woman would replace Jesus' position; and even more "interesting" that it would be Marilyn Monroe - potentially the most famous female antithesis of Jesus of the 20th Century. Further, many of the men in the "Hollywood Last Supper" also do not exactly exemplify Christian values.

I understand parody and wanting to make a bold statement for sales; but I also understand sacrilege. The irony is fantastic: the poster "artist" used the famous depiction of a Christian scene to make money based on pop culture. How backward is that? I wonder if the creator of the poster also tried to sell it in a temple...

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

What "invention" dating back to as early as 6000 B.C. has the ability to "manipulate" input and give output/feedback quicker than the fastest, most powerful computer?

Answer: a mirror.

If you stop and think about the "power" of the mirror, you, too, may find it to be one of the most awesome, amazing, interesting, scarey, profound, terrible, yet simple invention ever.

Yes, the mirror has been instrumental in the creation and usage of cars, televisions, video equipment, telescopes, microscopes, and even decor.

But, the mirror has also helped perpetuate vanity and suicide.

How can an inatimate object - a simple piece of reflective glass - (help) make a young girl feel so crappy about herself or give a handsome man feelings of grandiose? When a beautiful young girl looks into a mirror and does not like what she sees, is that a problem?

I understand that the mirror isn't "doing" anything other than reflecting. I find it interesting that different people seeing the same reflection will "see" or at least "perceive" very different things. Similarly, the same person will see the same refelction differently at different times.

When it comes right down to it, should we even use mirrors for appearance reasons? Mirrors can be very helpful to get an eyelash out of your eye, but do we really need it to see how we dress, how our clothes fit, or how our hair looks?

If we all got rid of our mirrors at the same time, would we ever need to start using them again?

Would we judge or care if everyone's hair looked imperfect or different or "bad" if our own did too?

This is a crappy attempt at expressing some of my thoughts about the way a person can impact what a mirror reflects. Please add your own comments below in a manner that may be more concise, clear, and interesting...