How Do Contact-lenses Work?

Love is trusting. It was like in my brain I was a kid with my head cocked to the side, trying to understand the concept of the those clear little never-popping oddly flat bubbles my mom put in her eyes every day even though they made her cry. 

Love. IS. Trusting? If I had read it out loud I would have immediately followed with, "Idon'tunderstandhowthatworks." It makes sense to think that if you are loving, then you are trustworthy. But love first is trusting? That's really interesting. So I put it to work. God loves us, so He trusts us? Stepping into that thought was like tentatively walking into the ocean and taking a step further to find the sand suddenly drops a foot and now the water is up to your chest. So I took a step in a different direction. Not really, apparently at this point I was in the grips of the current, cause it only felt like I went deeper. God asks us to love others, so He really is asking us to trust them? Like trust them with our things? With us? With others? Trust what they say, what they claim? Like trrruuussst them. Come on. 

Okay, here I'm going to rattle off into my train of thought after I asked the page these questions. You might not have thought like this, but maybe you have. Either way, I'll be real with you. 

So to love someone is to trust them? That literally makes zero sense. I mean it does a little (of course), but why would that be in there. I want to be loving towards people, so I have to actually trust them. Like if love was in my heart, then trust would be too? And that's saying that God trust me, because He does love me. That seems ridiculous. When does that qualify as okay? I mean can totally see someone entrusting something to someone that doesn't really matter, or that you can fix or help out if something goes wrong... like asking your kid to carry in the sealed can of peanuts while you get the rest of the groceries. But that really seems way to easy.  

Love is a huge deal. A huge deal. I'm sure to trust-love someone is not as simple as asking them to carry the most durable lightweight insignificant grocery in from the car. One that you don't even really need. 

To love someone, and trust them. That takes a lot of love. And it takes a lot of actual trust. It takes an immense amount of security, and confidence, and faith. Which is why we don't trust anyone. Now, I'm going to go back into my own thoughts, how I was thinking to myself...

Why don't I want to trust people. Why wouldn't I naturally. If trust is a part of love, an indicator even, of love, then what's the gap? Because just trusting people never works. Those things I said before, putting those in a person is obviously, usually, an automatic no-go if anyone has had any experience with humans (...to think about kids.. how they trust...and then when they all of the sudden don't anymore). 

Love for others comes straight from God. Love at its best comes straight from God. Maybe that's why the word "Love" comes before the word "trusts." It definitely doesn't say trusting is love. So for me to be in that type of communion of Love with others, I've got to first be in that communion of Love with God. Or at least be in some communion of Love, with Him. Real Love. His Love, not mine. Meaning that... for me to trust others really is for me to trust God. If I really trusted Him, the Father of the universe then what is trusting another person? It's first an act of trusting Him, and actually is entirely just trusting Him if you think about it. Thats what that trust is rooted in, thats what that trust is made of, even if it is towards and in another person. But even to know all this... where does that leave us? Still, here, right now, here, where we were and how we felt two minutes ago. 

AKA this really is not even close to being as simple as a paragraph on your screen. I couldn't even tell you how to do it, or how long it takes, or how to really get there, because I'm not yet! But to think, that what God asks us to do, that "command" to love, is really just a beckon towards Him, is wild. He isn't saying throw your day into someone else's hands, He isn't saying throw your paycheck into someone else's hands, He isn't saying throw your heart, mind, body into someone else's hands. No, not blindly, not impulsively, not with a strive towards faith, or a strive to prove your "love," or a strive to help someone else "know love."

Why in the world does Paul write "love trusts"? Because we literally cannot comprehend a love that really would. Because the real Love does. 

So to comprehend that Love, that Love that Paul talks about, we have to dig, think, weigh out, search, listen. We have to look at ourselves, look at our world, look at the rest of Paul's letter, the rest of that book we now have. We have to go further, to the greater, to the unknown, to the wilder, more wonderful, mysterious ways of God to understand, and to have that; to have Love. And then to give it. 

Our love, here, doesn't seem to do all of those things at once very often, almost never. But later in that book, it says that we can do them all at once, that we can experience them all at once, that that Love is possible to hold, here. It's what we're made for. Thats why we randomly post words from that little paragraph everywhere, without even knowing where it comes from, or who said it, or the entirety of it at all. Because we want it, we want to believe in it, and we want to experience it and give it and have it be reality. Like actually reality. It seems like a leap of faith to even imagine that. 

Well, it's real. And it can be. 100%. So be beckoned. Dig deeper. Push harder. And then be totally lifted. If you haven't found it yet, and you want it still, that means there's something waiting. 

What Are We Truly Saying Perhaps... (Written 8.28.13)

Before I begin, I want to first lay out my purpose, my motivation. I simply aim to jog the brain, to provoke contemplation about our own selves, the source in which all that we put forth comes or moves through. I don't type to bash or hate, and I try to avoid judging at all costs. But, as I've experienced thus far, I cannot promise that I don't do a significant amount of this as it seems one must, sincerely, in even the most justifiable ways. What I am trying to say is, I am here to question, to push, or nudge if you will, and to potentially discover, most of the time within myself. However, I am human as are you, we aren't very different if you really think about it. And that is good.

Now to move on to the purpose in which I truly came to type. I was on Facebook today, I'm sure most of you can relate. If not, I really believe that's great. Nonetheless, much can be discovered through social media and today I came across a video with an intriguing title: "Russell Brand May Have Started a Revolution Last Night." Revolution is a strong word, we throw it around a lot in music, in common talk, as if we are actually revolting, as if we actually wish to revolt. But nonetheless it continues to hold an air of authority and excitement. I checked the video out, and really liked what I saw and what I heard. I don't know much about Russell Brand but I do know I only think him half funny in the times where I've listened, which also isn't very much. However, he has something about him that not many have, he really seems to just not care, in the best yet potentially very offensive way possible. Regardless, I was more concerned about the word "Revolution" really than the fact that Russell Brand was saying it. Click here to watch the video. Yes, it was great, to say the least; tons to think about, tons to consider and pick apart, but lots of truth, and really potentially, yes, a revolutionary movement although I'm not sure its entirely credited to him. However, he got the chance to speak it and he did. He fought for it too, and he was definitely heard. He's being what he believes. I took away much from what he said, but I guess also some about Russell Brand, and the way he's working his passions and beliefs. Two great things. I posted the video so that other's might potentially do the same. If not to take away things similar to what I did, but to take away something, or potentially provoke thought about something.

However I did not expect the first comment the video received:

"Wow I did not expect ideas like this from someone in hollywood, Russell Brand now has my respect."

Sorry to not spare anyone by not being vague, paraphrasing would do no help. However, keep in mind that I am simply using this comment as a ground, as I don't in any way feel that something said like this is unique.

By this, I was offended, maybe not for Russell Brand specifically, but for those of the collection of humanity that happen to be involved in or live in Hollywood. East-coast goers, California is not too far away, and the only thing that we are more of than anyone in Hollywood is oblivious of what is going on in this country and the world. In addition, people in Hollywood are people, they are us, we are them, it is that way with people in Africa, people in China, people in the redneck woods of West Virginia and the boondocks of Louisiana, people in Canada, and the downtown blue-light streets of Baltimore. Potentially the less we think of people as less or more, entirely different or entirely the same, the closer we get to them, the closer we get to ourselves, the closer we get to the big picture: what all of this is.

What are these judgements we make? I certainly would never want someone to judge me on what I wear, where I live, how much money I have, before asking me any questions, being in my presence, potentially looking in my eyes.  Yet I know at times I do. We cannot know, and we should not assume, without asking anything directly. And if something is discovered, heard, revealed, it should only be regarded as second-hand information, less than and never first-hand information. Simply because that is just what is it, second-hand information; opinions, conclusions. How could one not expect something, or expect something, without a judgement being made. Like I said, being judgmental is almost unavoidable in general. However, is it wise to just leave it at that? Or could things be improved by looking at what we judge, how we judge, who we judge, and why.

Why not expect ideas from "someone in hollywood" like that?

Who is  "someone in hollywood"? What does that mean?

Where could one get that definition from, if one could come up with one? And why is it so stable that one could make a generalized conclusion about one person like that?

Is it stable? Is it really true?

What is being said, really?

And what is any of this saying about who called the judgement?

Russell Brand is very intelligent. I did not get that from the interview, I know that because he is a successful comedian. One has to be. Its like rapping, you must be intelligent to be truly successful and respectable in that.

Russell Brand also probably does not care to have or gain your or my respect, not from watching that interview anyway. If you heard anything that he said clearly, he was trying to say something, he wanted us to listen to his words, he could probably care less what you or I thought about him afterwards. And honestly, what is your or my opinion of Russell Brand or anyone anyway? To put it bluntly, it only serves ourselves. Our opinions, judgements, conclusions, etc. They serve us, they reflect us, they affect us. Not anybody else, unless that person welcomes it or asks for it.

But Russell Brand was not doing that, I was not doing that with the purpose of posting my video. Nonetheless, the continuation of placing ourselves at the center of all things prevails, pushes forward, and continues to destroy, even if little by little.  And in most cases, this continues to go unnoticed, and sometimes not even just unnoticed, but encouraged.

As we continue to put ourselves in the center of the world, regarding our words, judgements, conclusions, beliefs as the highest, to be "rightfully considered as correct," we lose ourselves, we lose what is around us, we lose touch with that big picture, blinded and lost, we keep pushing forward continuing to ensure that we are right, holding onto all those judgments, claims, conclusions, until they potentially destroy us.

Because what happens if we are wrong?

If we are the center, and the center falls through, then what happens then, to the we? to the us? to the me? to the you?

An Element Rediscovered on a Cheap Flight Home (Written 8.13.13)

I just got back from one of the most amazing trips of my life. Not only because of what I did, but because of the sheer amount of unexpected depth, meaning, and discovery that it contained...along with the ridiculous amount of fun I had in the midst of it all. I took the cheapest flight back, the red eye, and ended up on a plane that, to say the least of it all, had a movie screen behind the headrest of each seat. So, I watched the only free movie - a three hour long compilation of clips from the Civil Rights movement and speeches given by Martin Luther King as well as a few others. The movie, however, was titled King. I wouldn't have watched it if it hadn't been made up of  95% live clips from the movement, the other 5% orally given poems. I am proud that the movie was an option, and I am even more glad that I watched it. Martin Luther King Jr. was a remarkable man. A lot of people say that, but not many actually think about why that is. I mean just actually think about it for a few minutes, then you will get a glimpse of the magnitude of what he did, of who he was, of how he was.
Today, as much as I could while also keeping peace with the wild lot of four year olds, I sat on the Internet and researched nonviolence, nonviolent resistance, nonviolent resistance tactics, training (didn't know that existed), and MLK. There are two types of nonviolent resistance. Philosophical and tactical. Martin Luther King lived nonviolence. Philosophical nonviolents, such as MLK tried to love their enemies and tried to refrain from violence in all aspects of their lives. They took action to oppose injustice and used "love and redemptive suffering to win over their enemies." To live and preach nonviolence at the level that Martin Luther King did, literally in the middle of one of the most hectic and violent movements in America, leading people through it...not just doing it, but leading others, masses of people, is remarkable. To be that disciplined, intelligent, passionate, socially and politically aware, self aware, convicted, and faithful is something that is really attained by maybe one or two a century. Not even... Definitely not even...
Reading all this stuff is enlightening in so many ways. But to be honest it made me think about myself a lot. I am obviously no Martin Luther King Jr.... But can I be? Do I decide if that happens? Or had something already decided that it won't? Is a passion and determination like that something that's triggered, sculpted, found, given, or simply, in most cases I guess..just not there?
So from here I started to look at what and who influenced Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi and Jesus were two big ones. Big ones. And now MLK is up there with them. Both of these men, however, have very different stories, from each other and from MLK. Gandhi's experience was rough. I mean rough as in discouraging. Things just didn't seem to work. Failures after failures, but still with glimpses of success. He was unsuccessful in things from school, to political elections, to nonviolent protests, to his religious convictions...he was even plotted against by his own. However Gandhi kept at it. It took him years to gain "mastery over his sexual desires," encouraged greatly by his wife. He had to retreat to an old farm away from the masses for a few years at one point to escape false claims and corrupt plottings against him. He had to try and try again at opposing the same Bills, at first succeeding and then later that same success falling through. But between all these things he was constantly working himself up. From working as a writer for a political campaign, to embarrassing political leaders by writing letters to newspapers, a new form of protesting. He founded a newspaper that was a huge catalyst to his movements, later lead multiple strikes and marches, stood by his people and his principles, was thrown in jail a number of times, and was ultimately assassinated. As was Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi led his own country to freedom and changed the lives of millions in South Africa. His name was changed to mean "a great soul." With all that put in short, one thing that I noticed, after all my questions in response to watching and learning about MLK, was that Gandhi had a rough time. He kept going at it. Kept learning and trying, and simply doing what he thought needed to be done and was right, for himself and then his people. He wasn't the best at everything, and struggled a lot with himself and with the people surrounding him, even ones that seemed to be on the same page. But remember, Gandhi was a huge influence for MLK. Him and Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth disrupted the norm so much that he was killed by the state. Not assassinated, but forced to be put to death by the masses, saving them all the same. This idea, nonviolent resistance, the fight for justice and truth with action...it's part of the whole thing. Disrupting the masses while continuing to love the enemy - it's an art to be learned by the Master, who the ones we look up to, constantly quote, and almost seem to attribute these qualities to more, learned from - Jesus of Nazareth, God Himself.