Lightning Struck a Tree

Recently lightning struck a tree near by the building I work in. I took a few pictures of the lightning damage to the tree before they cut it down. The tree is very old and UNC was considering removing it anyway, but with this much damage they will just have to remove it as soon as possible. I spoke briefly with someone who works for the grounds crew and he said, "The tree is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet."

I would like to point out the distinct spiral pattern of the lightning strike. From all the trees I have seen that have been struck by lightning, they all have the same distinctive spiral pattern. I don't know why follows the spiral pattern, but I do know why lighting causes trees to explode like this. If the tree is dry (i.e. no rain has fallen) then the lightning will travel down through the living part of the tree, where the sap and water is. The water super-heats and expands rapidly (it literally explodes) causing the outer layer of the tree to blow out. In some cases, such as this, the damage is extensive enough that it will kill the tree outright or do enough damage to severely reduce its ability to survive.

You can see two separate spiral patters here where the lightning traveled down the tree.

If you look carefully you can see the splintering going all the way up the tree.

From the exact opposite side of the tree from the previous picture.

A close up of where the lightning traveled down the tree. The section where the bark has been removed is about 8-9 inches wide, and you can see two groves where the lightning actually traveled. One is at the extreme left of where the bark has been stripped, and the other is slightly off to the right from the middle of the stripped area.

Why Google+ Gets Human Relations and Facebook Fails Miserably

A couple of years ago I signed up for Facebook. I had been resisting it for a while, even when people kept asking me if I was on Facebook and promptly treating me like a leper when I told them I wasn't. It wasn't until one of my roommates (who was also staunchly anti-Facebook) got on Facebook that I broke down and got my own account. For a while I only had one Facebook "friend" (my roommate) but eventually I got more. At first I was slightly amused, but mostly annoyed with the trivial tripe of Facebook such as the pokes, surveys, polls, games and flashing lights (some of that has toned down over the years).

But eventually I sort of stopped using Facebook because really it was just one more thing to bother with when I had other things (such as two blogs) to think about, and that fulfilled my "social networking need". So I kept up with a once yearly update on Facebook and called it good, and if I ever needed to actually get in contact with someone, I could look them up on Facebook and find their email address. That worked for me.

One of the things that I could never really get into with Facebook was the way everyone I knew was thrown into one big pot. Everyone, from my wife, to my parents to my in-laws, to high school or college friends to that random guy in my class were put into the same big pot of "friends". It was kind of like Facebook couldn't conceive of anyone having any relation other than "friend". At some point they kind of implemented this thing where you could declare someone as part of your "family" but other than being cosmetic I could see no use to it.

If I wanted to post a status update I had to keep in mind that everyone from my parents to high school friends to graduate students that I work with could see it. If I wanted to post about family reunion stuff, why would my high school friends want to read about that? Everyone was being blasted by the same fire hose and there was little that could be done to redirect that stream so that it could be manageable. Over time Facebook was working on improving that but it seemed that they still functioned with one driving principle in mind, that one person had one status and one stream of thought to the entire world. And that all human relations are fundamentally equal and indistinguishable. That there is nothing inherently different in a human relation between a parent and a child than there is between two associates at work. Human relations, according to Facebook, are a nondescript pipeline of information flow (or at least a flow of stuff, if you don't want to call what happens on Facebook information) with information constantly flowing from one person to another, and the more the information flows the stronger the human relation.

This way of thinking may make sense in a college setting where everyone is meeting someone new and people are forming new relations, but in the real world there are pre-made relations that are formed for different reasons. Some relations are not based on information flow but on other things, such as marriage or blood relation. I may be "friends" with my wife's aunts and uncles on Facebook, but I would not characterize our relation as one based on information flow, or even on a desire to network. I have interactions with them because I married their niece, not because we met and decided that we should be "friends" (that doesn't mean  I have a problem with them, it just means that the connection was made for reasons other than the ones the Facebook team think of as being fundamental to human relations). The thing is Facebook fails to comprehend this. To them the connection to my wife's cousin's husband (who I have never met in person) is considered to be of the same order, or importance, as the connection I have to a roommate that I lived with for 3 years, or that mission companion that I was with for 3 months, and survived dog attacks, torrential downpours, floods, cold weather, broken ribs, and several unforgettable teaching experiences with. How does that compare? Yet Facebook fails to understand that and just wants to lump everyone into one big group of "friends" and you are given one fire hose to turn on them and drench them with your pictures, status updates and stuff.

Today when I got onto Google+ the first thing I noticed was that I could very easily put people in different categories. I could also control the streams of status updates, photos and stuff. I could separate the photos of family from friends, and from acquaintances. That way the pictures of my nieces and nephews would not be mixed in with the pictures of "that one guy" from high school playing guitar at some random party. In short, the Google team made it so that my interactions on a social network could be organized into real human relations that reflect the real world. That right there puts them light years ahead of Facebook.

I don't know much else about how Google+ works, but that one feature of being able to separate friends from family, acquaintances from people I know from work, and my 20+ aunts and uncles-in-law from my cousin that I haven't seen for about 20 years, is enough to make me want to give it a shot. And I might just stick with it because it may actually be useful.

Cool Video from the Cockpit of an Air Tanker

Just wanted to share this cool video shot from the cockpit of an air tanker fighting the Monument Fire in Arizona.

Also I found this cool time-lapse video of the fire.

"Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments" Scripture Chain

One of the reoccurring themes in the Book of Mormon is the idea that if the people follow the commandments of God then they will prosper, but if not then they will be cut off from his presence. This theme is so prevalent that it is mentioned at least 18 20 times in the Book of Mormon in almost the exact same way. If there is something that is mentioned so many times in the Book of Mormon then I think it should be something to take note of.

One thing I find particularly interesting is the difference between what is promised for keeping the commandments, and what the consequence is for not keeping the commandments. On the one hand those who keep the commandments are promised that they will "prosper in the land". But on the other hand those who do not keep the commandments are not warned that they will be destroyed, instantly, slowly or otherwise, but they are warned that they will be "cut off from the presence of the Lord." So the warning for not keeping the commandments, interestingly enough is not instant, immediate, absolute and eternal destruction, but rather that they (those who do not keep the commandments) will be left to their own devices, and will be left to fend for themselves. They will stand or fall by their own strength and will no longer receive the sustaining influence of the Lord.

A number of years ago one of my sisters loaned my a set of scriptures to use in seminary. It was the same set of scriptures that several of my sisters had used in seminary (sorry I don't know the full history of this set of scriptures, but it does have two of my sister's names in the front). Somewhere along the way someone had written a scripture chain which included every instance where the promise and warning is given in the Book of Mormon. I just wanted to include that scripture chain here, with links to the scriptures on lds.org. Hopefully this will be helpful to someone.

1. 1 Nephi 2:20-21
2. 1 Nephi 4:14
3. 2 Nephi 1:9,11
4. 2 Nephi 1:20
5. 2 Nephi 4:4
6. Jarom 1:9
7. Omni 1:6
8. Mosiah 1:7
9. Mosiah 2:22
10. Mosiah 2:31
11. Alma 9:13
12. Alma 36:1
13. Alma 36:30
14. Alma 37:13
15. Alma 38:1
16. Alma 48:15
17. Alma 48:25
18. Alma 50:20
19. Helaman 3:20
20. 3 Nephi 5:22

[Author's note 8/23/15: After going back and checking these verses I found two more references that were not in my original list. Alma 48:15 refers to the original prophecy found in 2 Nephi 1:20. 3 Nephi 5:22 is commentary by Mormon about the fulfillment of that prophecy. As near as I can tell this list is now complete. Also note the interesting difference in Omni 1:6.]

Bound for the Promised Land

Bound for the Promised Land is a song written by Samuel Stennett in 1787. The tune for the song was written by a "Miss M. Durham" of which nothing else is known. The song became a well known Christian hymn, and most recently it has been arranged by Mack Wilberg. Below is a video of the hymn as arranged by Mack Wilberg, performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, directed by Mack Wilberg.

When I looked up the lyrics I found that many of sites that had the lyrics did not have all of the verses. Some had three, others four, but they all seemed to have different verses, and none of them had all of the verses in the Mack Wilberg arrangement. So put together the lyrics as found in the Mack Wilberg version. He has four verses, and includes the chorus six times (first two verses, chorus twice, next two verses, and repeat chorus four times).

On Jordan's stormy banks I stand

And cast a wishful eye

To Canaan's fair and happy land,

Where my possesions lie.

There generous fruits that never fail

On trees immortal grow;

There rocks and hills and brooks and vales

With milk and honey flow.

Chorus

I am bound for the promised land,

I am bound for the promised land

O who will come and go with me

I am bound for the promised land.

Repeat Chorus

O the transporting rapt'rous scene

That rises to my sight;

Sweet fields arrayed in living green

And rivers of Delight.

When shall I reach that happy place,

I’ll be forever blest,

When shall I see my Father’s face,

And in His bosom rest.

Chorus

I am bound for the promised land,

I am bound for the promised land

O who will come and go with me

I am bound for the promised land.

Repeat Chorus

Repeat Chorus

Repeat Chorus

In addition to the four verses in the Mack Wilberg arrangement I was able to find four additional verses to the song. I will include them below.

Soon will the Lord my soul prepare

For joys beyond the skies,

Where never-ceasing pleasures roll,

And praises never die.

O’er all those wide extended plains

Shines one eternal day;

There God the Son forever reigns,

And scatters night away.

No chilling winds or poisonous breath

Can reach that healthful shore;

Sickness and sorrow, pain and death,

Are felt and feared no more.

Filled with delight my raptured soul

Would here no longer stay;

Though Jordan’s waves around me roll,

Fearless I’d launch away.

Book Review: Venezuela's Chavismo and Populism in Comparative Perspective by Kirk Hawkins

If I had to sum this book up in one word it would be "dense". This is not a book that you would (typically) want to curl up with on a lazy afternoon to relax with. This book has an incredible wealth of information, complexity, and analysis. This is not a book written for a general audience, but the things it talks about are incredibly important for the general audience. Perhaps the only way I could begin to understand what the author was talking about was because I have at least a minimal familiarity with Latin American politics and I spent four years studying philosophy, that way I could understand a lot of the technical terms and their proper context.

Perhaps I can give a brief overview of the book (kind of like trying to explain the history of Western Civilization in 1000 words or less), so here goes:

As the title implies the book deals with the Chavismo movement in Venezuela (it does not provide a breakdown of Hugo Chávez himself, as the Chavismo movement, while centered on Hugo Chávez, is much more complex than a single movement lead by one man). Furthermore, the book looks at Chavismo as a populist movement rather than an expression of a particular political ideology. The movement does have a particular ideology, but to think of it in such narrow terms is to miss what is really going on.

One of the first things Dr. Hawkins does is set out an understanding of three critical ideas; populism, worldview and discourse. In terms of worldview, Chavismo movement has what is called a Manichaean outlook, which means they view their own actions, plight and work as being part of a larger cosmic struggle between the Good and the Evil. In this case the Good is interpreted by them to be the unified will of the people and the Evil to be a conspiring minority. In this sense their worldview is a populist worldview. The discourse refers not to a set cannon of political tracts or works, but a more elusive and set of vocabulary, tone, metaphor and broad themes that drive the movement.

After laying this foundation Dr. Hawkins then proceeds to give an in depth analysis of Hugo Chávez's use of populist discourse and also gives a method of measuring the populist discourse quantitatively. This is compared to other countries and leaders to give a sense of where Chávez and Chavismo in general falls in the populist spectrum. Not surprisingly it falls at the extreme end of the populist spectrum.

Then Dr. Hawkins looks into the historical causes that lead to the rise of populism in Venezuela. While there were a number of factors that contributed to the formation of the societal forces in Venezuela, Dr. Hawkins clearly states that it was the break down of democratic norms and the underlying violation of the rule of law that allowed for the creation of a populist movement in Venezuela. This assertion is accompanied by a number of studies and surveys (presented in a number of tables) to measure the level or the perceived level of corruption in government. This measure is compared against the causes of populism across several countries and areas of the world.

The book finishes up with a look at how the introduction of a populist movement has affected Venezuela in general. Specifically the author looks at the effect of Bolivarian Circles on the fundamental political organization of the country. The Circles are characterized by four attributes: low institutionalization, movement structure, disruptive tactics, and insularity within the larger society. These four things both defined and drove the populist movement in Venezuela. The effects of populism on public policy are also considered where it is asserted that the ideology of the populist movement drives the economic policies rather than economic policies driving the movement.

The book concludes by emphasizing the importance of the ideas developed in the course of the book, namely that of populism as discourse and worldview that can be used to understand and apply to different situations across the world. It is important to understand how the system works because that will determine future outcomes and/or determine how the society interacts with other societies. How that particular society responds to external forces and influences will be highly dependent on the strength and amount of populist fervor in the country. Definitely important things to consider when interacting or studying the country in question.

Overall I found the book to be very informative and interesting. I realize that I could never give an adequate summary of the book here as it is very complex, but it does provide a wealth of ideas, analysis and understanding of populism.

Disclaimer: Dr. Kirk Hawkins is my brother-in-law, which is why I decided to read this book. I don't typically go and pull random Political Science books of the shelf and read them. But I really did enjoy reading this book.

The Philosophical Implications of the LDS Doctrine of Works

Previously I had written about the purpose of our Christian works. In that post I discussed how one of the critical ideas that set Latter-day Saints apart from many other Protestant theologies is how we view our personal works being a part of our process of salvation. One of the things that Mormons find interesting or noticeably different when talking to Protestant Christians is how much emphasis they place on "being saved". Quite often LDS members are bemused by how frequently they are asked if "they have accepted Jesus" or "have been saved". For many LDS members they view these questions as nonsensical or at least don't understand why the question has to be asked so much. More often you will hear Latter-day Saints say that they are "working towards salvation" or that they are "in the process" of being saved. In wards (congregations) that I have been in it is not uncommon to hear the phrase "it's a process", about once a month in reference to salvation.

Too many times when the subject of salvation comes up in conversation between Mormons and Protestants (especially Evangelical Protestants) the Protestants come away thinking that Mormons do not believe in Jesus, or think that Mormons do not accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ. The truth is Mormons readily accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ, it's just that we have a different perspective on what it means "to be saved" or rather, "the process of salvation" (there's that word again, "process"). What it comes down to is a fundamental difference of philosophy. Just as Mormons do not typically talk about "being saved" (as a single act), Protestants do not frequently talk about "the process of salvation", and this, I think, is a insight that would be of great interest to those who are philosophically minded.

Essentially what it comes down to is that LDS theology is fundamentally related to process theology. This is to say that while we view God as the creator of the world, we also hold that we have creative power, or the power to reshape . The common way we express this is to say that we are "co-creators" with God (but I must emphasize that that phrase is only used in a limited sense and in specific circumstances. This does not extend to the creation referenced in Genesis, but only to current, specific creative acts.). This approach to theology fundamentally puts us at odds with the majority of Protestant (and most Catholic) theology which is fundamentally based on substance philosophy (i.e. an emphasis on being, or states of being, rather than a process).

To understand this difference we need to understand the difference between process philosophy and substance philosophy. Perhaps the best way to explain substance philosophy is to start with Aristotle's Categories (both the book and the topic).

"[Statements about a subject (or a thing)] which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time,position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are 'man' or 'the horse', of quantity, such terms as 'two cubits long' or 'three cubits long', of quality, such attributes as 'white', 'grammatical'. 'Double', 'half', 'greater', fa;; under the category of relation; 'in the market place', 'in the Lyceum', under that of place; 'yesterday', 'last year', under that of time. 'Lying', 'sitting', are terms indicating position; 'shod', 'armed', state; 'to lance', 'to cauterize', action; 'to be lanced', 'to be cauterized', affection." (1b25-2a4)

The point is that all things, even actions, exist in a state of being. Thus any and all qualities that a thing has is simply a succession and collection of states. But the ultimate reality, the ontology, is that things exist in specific states or have specific qualities, even when in motion (because motion itself is a state of being).

One of the consequences of this way of thinking is that change in a substance (as in, from cold to hot, or from white to black) is of a lesser reality than the actual states. The flux, or change, in states does not constitute a form of reality. This way of thinking is so pervasive that it can even be found in certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics the common description is that the wavefunction of a particle describes all possible states. The uncertainty involved quantum mechanics is not considered to be an aspect of reality, but rather is ignorance of reality.

On the other hand process philosophy takes the view that the fundamental change in states, rather than being an inferior aspect of reality, is an integral part of reality. That is, the creative process is an aspect of reality that creates reality, just as much as the substance of things makes up reality. With this way of thinking, reality is not made up by a set of states, or collection of substances, but by interactions of processes that act on things, to produce states.

There are of course philosophies that go to the other extreme and say that all things are flux, and that there is no substance at all (as is common in Eastern philosophies). But the LDS concept of process theology, while avoiding substance philosophy, also avoids a complete rejection of substance, and makes no assertions that all things are in flux, but in fact says that the elements are eternal. Thus LDS theology contains a rather unique view of process and being that is not found anywhere else.

The way this process philosophy manifests itself in LDS culture is in the idea that (individual) salvation does not come in a single act, but is a process that we must go through. Hence the difference, and often misunderstandings, that Mormons have with other Christians. For most Christians (especially for Protestants) to be saved means entering into the state of salvation. The actual change to the state of salvation is a mystery performed by God. On the other hand, for Latter-day Saints, to talk about "being saved" does not make sense because salvation is fundamentally a process, and is not achieved in a single act of believing or confession.

Thus we can see that this fundamental difference in philosophy can create a misunderstanding between Mormons and other Christians, because Mormons treat salvation as a process that must be worked through, but other Christians (especially Protestants) treat salvation as entering into a state of being saved. This difference is more than just a difference on an abstract level, but affects the way we interact with our own religion. For Mormons, because salvation is a process, our (Christian) works are not simply a result of being "saved", as some Protestants put it, but our works are the means by which we become worthy of entering into the presence of God (i.e. being saved).

The end result is a strong emphasis on doing good works, and living a moral life. Thus this process theology, which many Christian theologians consider a heresy, results in and encourages Mormons to do good works, and is what makes us known for our moral lifestyles. This is the real effect of this way of thinking.

Now as a final point. While process philosophy is gaining some ground, especially in the United States, I should point out that while many of the things that are fundamental to LDS theology are similar to the writings of process philosophers such as Whitehead, Hartshorne, James and Pierce, these ideas were expressed and taught more than 50 years before some of the process philosophers were even born, and definitely before any of them began writing. The common perception in philosophy is that philosophical frame works drive theology, but in the LDS case, the theology drives the philosophy. Again I think that this is an interesting point that those who are philosophically inclined should take note of.