%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |    My primary Writing.com blog. |
|
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics). Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:  "The Soundtrackers Group"  "Blogging Circle of Friends " "Blog City ~ Every Blogger's Paradise" "JAFBG" "Take up Your Cross" Thanks for stopping by!  |
| Prompt ▼ I came across this blog prompt tonight and it's the perfect question because I'm currently frustrated with my writing output. This is another NaNoWriMo where I've failed to write much, in a year where I haven't written much, in a season where I haven't written much. You know the saying, you never forget how to ride a bike? I'm not much of a cyclist and a few years back, I decided to try riding again after more than a decade without ever getting on a bike. And even though it's true, I didn't actually forget how to ride, I sure as hell was out of practice, wobbling away and desperately trying to keep my balance at a speed I can only describe as embarrassingly slow. Ever since then, I've had a new perspective on my various skills. I haven't necessarily forgotten how to do anything, but I do get out of practice at things I don't regularly maintain. I'm out of shape physically, and I'm out of shape as a writer, because I haven't devoted the time or focus to maintaining my abilities. All that I've accepted. The frustrating part for me is that I haven't really found anything that's worked to get me back into practice. I join activities like "I Write: Enter the Second Decade" (which I'm writing this blog post for) in hopes that the regular writing will help me shake the rust off, but so far nothing has helped me regain that spark I used to have for writing. Maybe it's just the phase of life I'm in now, as a father with a demanding day job who's still grieving his mother's death two years ago and trying to find meaning and purpose behind everything. Maybe I'm not dedicating enough time to my writing, or not following through enough with the ideas I do come up with.I honestly don't know where to go from here. As I close out NaNoWriMo in a few days, and I Write with this blog post, I'm going to need to really think about what it is that I need to do to get back to my writing, Because my inability to hit my stride with my writing is my current frustration right now. |
| I have a couple of colleagues at work who were just turned down for promotions and/or raises for no other reason than the company doesn't want to promote them or pay them more. Both of them have consistently gone above and beyond their assigned job duties (the expectation being that they would be rewarded with advancement sooner or later), and both of them have decided that a little "work-to-rule" (or "quiet quitting" as it's come to be known recently) is the only real recourse they have against an employer who is arbitrarily preventing them from achieving career advancement. I've never been a fan of the term "quiet quitting" because it has nothing to do with quitting your job, and the expectation that you're somehow deficient for only doing the bare minimum that a company is paying you for is a toxic one. "Work-to-rule" literally means doing no more than the minimum required by the rules of your contract or job, and I actually prefer the term "act your wage," as I think it's a better description of the action in today's world where over-performance is expected (to the point where just doing the job you were hired to do is called quiet quitting!). In my experience, a lot of employers are still riding high on the past decade-plus of favorable conditions for companies. Since the Great Recession between 2007 and 20009, companies have been emboldened to make excessive demands on employees' time and energy. There are entire online forums dedicated to employees sharing stories of how their bosses and companies have set unrealistic expectations, whether it's working mandatory overtime, taking on additional responsibilities above and beyond their job description, or even being pressured to forego benefits such as taking all their vacation days or expensing valid items. For myself personally, I have benefit of a relatively high paid, white-collar job with a large amount of flexibility. But at least half of my job at this point is comprised expanded responsibilities that are above and beyond the job description I was given upon being hired years ago, including: managing other employees, entire processes and responsibilities that have nothing to do with my core duties, etc. During the pandemic, we worked remotely from home for two years and continue to work hybrid from home at least two days a week if not more, but the company has never reimbursed us for our cell phone or home internet usage, both of which are used regularly for the company's benefit. Much of the world has gone through an economic shift recently. It's not unexpected; these kinds of ebbs and flows are natural where at certain times jobs are scarce and employers enjoy enormous influence over a workforce that needs their jobs more than the companies need them. But then things swing back the other way and there are more open job positions than qualified people to fill them, and the employees have more leverage to negotiate higher titles and salaries, have their pick of jobs which allows them to pass up ones that aren't a good fit for their needs, etc. It's just the natural cycle of business. But something has happened with this latest phase of employee empowerment, and it's that the companies - after over a decade of having the stronger position - are now resentfully opposing the a world where employees have the power to object to a company's working conditions. How many op-ed articles did you read during the pandemic about how remote work is terrible for business and people just need to get back to the office? Most of those were written by CEOs and corporate HR professionals. How many reddit forums and Buzzfeed lists and the like are dedicated to stories of unreasonable managers, supervisors, and bosses who think employees should make work their sole priority? How much pushback has there been at the idea of work-life balance, where the idea of (gasp) putting in your hours and going home at the end of the day is seen as tantamount to (quiet) quitting? Even before the pandemic, my parents never understood why I switched jobs every few years. They were raised in a generation where you could work for the same employer for decades, receiving regular promotions and raises, and very little reason to leave outside of a national economic downturn or the desire to leave. I grew up in a world where, over the first fifteen years of my professional career, I've worked for over half a dozen employers and left because I liked the place but was told there's no path for advancement (3x), or because I've been laid off (3x). I've only left one employer by choice based on it not being a good fit. For most of the years I've been a working professional, I've worked for employers who have made it very clear that they value their profits above their people. And that's not to say I haven't liked the jobs I've worked; just that they've been in an environment where the companies I've worked for have not been as loyal to me and they've expected me to be to them. All that said, the idea of "quiet quitting" is one that I understand. The desire to just do the job you're hired for and not give 100% of your time and energy to your employer is a reasonable and human one. And that dynamic of treating your job like a job and just one part of your life instead of your whole life shouldn't be something that's viewed derisively as a character flaw... it should just be "acting your wage." |
| Prompt ▼ When it comes to big questions like "is there extraterrestrial life out there" and "can humans thrive on other planets and/or moons," I tend to take a statistical look at probabilities rather than go with my gut instinct. While there were a number of unlikely conditions and factors that had to take place in order for life to exist here on Earth, one also has to look at the sheer size of the universe and wonder if, statistically, life is possible elsewhere. So let's do a little math...  First, you have to figure out how many planets are out there. This article does a great job of laying out some basic assumptions, but the main takeaway is this... our galaxy likely has trillions of planets in it, and current best estimates are that there are at least 200 billion other galaxies in the observable universe, so we're talking about 10^25 planets in the universe. If you want to see that number written out, that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in existence in the universe.But not all of those planets are likely habitable. There's a term in astronomy and astrobiology called the circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ), or "Goldilocks zone" colloquially, which refers to the range of orbits around a star where the planetary surface can support liquid water given sufficient atmospheric pressure. Within our own Milky Way galaxy, it's assumed that there could be as many as 40 billion planets roughly similar to Earth (i.e., in the Goldilocks zone with comparable sizes and geological features to that of Earth. Multiply that assumption by the 200 billion galaxies out there and out of the 10^25 total planets in the universe, 8^21 (8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) of them would presumably be in that Goldilocks zone and have the raw setup to be able to support the evolutionary processes that created humans. But let's assume that those unique systems are extremely rare. Maybe 0.000001% (one in every million planets that could support life actually do), and you're still looking at eight quadrillion planets (8,000,000,000,000,000) in the known universe. If you want to factor in time (i.e., assume that only one out of every million of those planets currently has sentient life because the rest either haven't gotten there yet or have since gone extinct, and we're down to eight billion (8,000,000,000) other planets. Oh, and by the way, these numbers are just for planets. There are also untold number of other moons, asteroids, comets, and other celestial bodies that aren't being counted here. When viewed like that, it seems almost egotistical to think that we're the only planet that managed to evolve its way to sentient life. That's not to say that sentient life on other planets looks anything like us, communicates like us, or even that conditions are close enough for us to survive on their planet... let alone whether any of them have developed technology possible to traverse the space that separates them, but the question of "whether there is sentient life out there," for me, is a probabilistic "yes." I don't know whether that sentient life has any resemblance to our own, but it just seems likely that some other planet somewhere in our vast universe has figured out how to nurture and sustain intelligent life. And regarding the other questions of whether humans can thrive on other planets or their moons, I think the answer to that based on our own demonstrated ingenuity, is a resounding yes. As a species who has exponentially advanced its technological capability and understanding in the span of just a few thousand years (and made massive leaps in just the past few decades), I think it's likely that problems of acclimatization are ones that are solvable, whether it's developing technologies that allow us to breathe a new atmosphere, or create structures to insulate ourselves against a hostile (but habitable) atmosphere, I think it's probable that, if we were to find one of those planets similar to our own, whether already inhabited or not, we have the ingenuity and resourcefulness to figure out how to survive in a new environment that has the basic building blocks for sustaining life. This is one of the reasons why I love reading and writing science fiction so much; figuring out what may or may not have developed elsewhere in the universe at the same time we're finding our way on Earth is a puzzle with endless possibilities and end results. |
| "Take up Your Cross" | Prompt ▼ This is an interesting question because the concept of "reputation" has both pros and cons. On the one hand, if someone does not have a good reputation, people don't listen to them. If a Christian has a bad reputation, their ability to evangelize and communicate the message of the Gospel becomes compromised, if not downright detrimental to the cause. In a world where we're supposed to be the living embodiment of a better way to live, how do we convince people to follow the path if our own reputations are tarnished. It's often been pointed out by critics that Christians have almost the same rate of divorce as non-Christians. That churches and other Christian organizations are just as susceptible to corruption and poor management. And on and on. Without having outstanding reputations, Christians won't be able to convince anyone that their way is better than any of the other alternatives out there. On the other hand, it's very easy for reputation to become an idol, for someone to become more concerned with their reputation than anything else including their commitment to following Jesus. Again, it's often pointed out by critics that many Christians suffer from the idol of reputation just like everyone else. There are pastors who have let their concern for their reputation harm their churches. There are Christian worship leaders and authors and missionaries who have prioritized their personal reputation over their mission for the church. If reputation becomes an idol, Christians won't be able to convince anyone that their way is better than any of the other alternatives out there. When it comes to the concept of reputation, Christians need to be concerned with maintaining a good one so that they can effectively evangelize, but they must stop short of letting their reputation become an idol that replaces their kingdom work. |
| Explainer ▼ Movies  The Bad GuysTelevision  Abbott Elementary (Season 2) Andor Insecure (Season 1) - DNF The Punisher Reboot (Season 1)There was a lot of good stuff that I watched this month. Abbott Elementary is great again this season, and Andor was a welcome surprise in a Star Wars franchise piece that isn't about the same usual Skywalker lineage. The Bad Guys was a surprisingly good family heist movie that I will definitely be watching again, and I'm slowly making my way through The Punisher, the last of the Marvel/Netflix shows that I never really got around to watching when it originally aired. I tried to get into Insecure because I'd heard great things about it, but after two episodes I just don't see myself finishing it anytime soon. Lately I've been really avoiding shows that require a huge investment of time to get into. The same goes for Schitt's Creek and Parks & Recreation which people rave about but most admit it takes a couple of seasons to hit its stride... and I just haven't been feeling like investing the time to watch literal seasons of television before getting to the good stuff. Maybe sometime in the future, but I'm labeling Insecure as a "DNF" because I don't see myself going back to it anytime in the next several months. Reboot was really funny. It's very "inside baseball" about the entertainment industry, but the performances and the writing are good enough that I think most people would enjoy this behind the scenes look at rebooting a classic sitcom (the show centers on a modern-day remake of a Step by Step / Full House type show from decades ago with the original cast who have all changed since then). TOP PICK: Reboot (Season 1) |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
