![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On a non-gaming note...
I'm doing pretty well, personally. I picked up 'Princep's Fury' and a special treat: my Waldenbooks had /one/ copy of the Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney Casebook, the first one. So I snagged it. There's one somewhat serious story in there, but the others are mostly funny vignettes about...well, mostly about how Phoenix is the only sane man in the asylum. :D They're set after the third game, but their status as canon is dubious.
I am...largely happy. Of course, this isn't unusual. I seem to be a very even keeled person, emotionally. My default state is 'content', even when maybe I shouldn't be. On the down side, this tends to make me the opposite of ambitious and a bit of a procrastinator. Not enough anxiety. On the other hand, I usually feel good about the world and the people in it. Even my occasional bouts of self-loathing are rather amiable. So, yay for me, I guess.
I do wish to do more creative work, though. My biggest problem with that is that I feed off of reaction from consumers. Although a lot of stories, games, etc, run through my head, I only really feel the need to write them down when I have an audience in mind. This is not good. It's very external, and so at the whim of others. I need to fix that.
Bonus Edit!
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons [this is only an example; he's pro-choice], but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason."
THIS. This, this, this.
I am...largely happy. Of course, this isn't unusual. I seem to be a very even keeled person, emotionally. My default state is 'content', even when maybe I shouldn't be. On the down side, this tends to make me the opposite of ambitious and a bit of a procrastinator. Not enough anxiety. On the other hand, I usually feel good about the world and the people in it. Even my occasional bouts of self-loathing are rather amiable. So, yay for me, I guess.
I do wish to do more creative work, though. My biggest problem with that is that I feed off of reaction from consumers. Although a lot of stories, games, etc, run through my head, I only really feel the need to write them down when I have an audience in mind. This is not good. It's very external, and so at the whim of others. I need to fix that.
Bonus Edit!
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons [this is only an example; he's pro-choice], but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason."
THIS. This, this, this.
no subject
I make my choices about my life based, in part, on my faith. My choice of politics has something to do with that too-- but only in the broadest sense. My policies, always, have to deal with the realm of the human. I know there's a lot of discussion about what the "Render unto Ceasar" quote means, but-- Eh. Fundamentalism is fanaticism is irrational, no matter what you clothe it in, I guess.
no subject
And I don't, inherently, consider irrationality to be a bad thing. A lot of the best things humans have done in this world have been utterly irrational, based on nothing but a dream or a belief. Politics, ideally, should be...mostly rational, but not entirely. One needs space for the heart.
no subject
no subject