Psychobabble (the blog goes meta!)

A quick note:

I’m a little surprised at the direction this blog has taken. Rather than the more or less straightforward recording of events I had originally meant to write, it’s become a bit more introspective. I’m still not sure if this may be a bit too livejournalesq, but it is certainly different. Then again, this whole of the last few months has been more introspective than full of interesting daily events. As long as that’s the case, I figure I might as well embrace writing about myself. Besides, it’s a lot better on the ego that writing about work every day.

It is nice to have a chance to read and really think about everything. I’m not sure will agree with that in two years, but for now it’s good to ponder a single passage in a book for an afternoon after work. Reinhold Niebuhr has been a project of the last few weeks, based on a few articles I downloaded last spring, thinking they might become a paper. It’s not the same as having his actual books (hint to anyone thinking of sending reading material), but it does the trick.

Last week’s passage, what with Yom Kippur and just generally finding myself in a situation much larger than any individual effort:

Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime, therefore we must be saved by hope.

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history, therefore we must be saved by faith.

Nothing we do, however virtuous, could be accomplished alone, therefore we must be saved by love.

No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our own standpoint, therefore we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.

Niebuhr was writing (in “The Irony of American History”) to a Christian audience, but I think in a lot of ways the sentiment can be appreciated universally.

Niebuhr is fascinating to think about while here. His philosophy was based around the irony or paradox (Krista Tippett refers to these as his favorite words) between a kind of philosophic idealism in his belief in Christianity and the pragmatic view he took of world events. Reconciling idealism with pragmatism… sounds awfully familiar.

Oh, and off topic, a quick congratulations to Paul Krugman. He’s been fascinating reading through this whole economic mess we’re in, and well deserving of the Nobel. If you haven’t been reading him, now would be a good time to start.