From the dear Vander Kodde's

"The men who have done the most for God in the world have been early on their knees. He who fritters away the early morning, its opportunity and freshness, in other pursuits than seeking God will make poor headway seeking Him the rest of the day. If God is not first in our thoughts and efforts in the morning, He will be in the last place the remainder of the day."

E.M. Bounds

"Spirit filled souls are ablaze for God. They love with a love that glows. They serve with a faith that kindles. They serve with a devotion that consumes. They hate sin with a fierceness that burns. They rejoice with a joy that radiates. Love is perfected in the fire of God."

Samuel Chadwick

"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. If they will parish, let them parish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and un-prayed for."

C.H. Spurgeon

An Impaired Worldview

My summer psychology course is discussing the following prompt from the teacher:

"A survey among college students indicated that 80% of male assailants and 70% of female victims were drinking before sexual assaults. In another survey of almost 90,000 students, researchers learned that alcohol or drugs were involved in 79% of unwanted sexual intercourse experiences. The fact is that most college students don't believe they have an alcohol problem, but they, on average, drink more alcohol than their non-student peers and many meet the criteria for alcohol abuse. What are three to five ideas you would propose for conducting a specific alcohol education program that would impact the college student and stop alcohol abuse?"

I responded as such:

An Impaired Worldview, Nursing It Today, Healing It Tomorrow

There needs to be a three-pronged focus here. We need to first understand the mentality that is going on when college students everywhere allow themselves to succumb to this depressant, then we need to deal with this situation as it is, and finally we need to deal with the future of this situation. We needs to implement certain tricks and rules that will help tend to the wounds of alcoholism in colleges today while simultaneously driving home a future oriented call for discernment and wisdom.

1. To deal with this situation as a whole, we need to understand the mentality behind it. I believe a quote from Dane Cook says something like, "Enjoy it now because after college it's called alcoholism." There is this idea floating around that we as students have to "live it up." We have to be outrageous and we have to out-do each other's outrageous-ness. It is due to us. Why? Because we have worked off the shackles and chains that the parents put on us and now, we must alter our minds with the power and strength of our god-like elixirs. Why am I so extreme? Why so seemingly melodramatic and expressive? First, I'm optimistic. I want the world to change and change big. I believe that real change is impossible until we change the little things. So the seemingly little things must receive all their due drama so that we may know them to be the because hazards that they truly are. And second, I know too many friends who've been specifically hurt by their own alcohol abuses. So we must see alcohol as students have chosen to see it, then we can change the errors in the view as students have chosen to accept it. Author, JF Baldwin explains that a worldview is like a pair of eyeglasses, the smudges on the glasses are unrealized, and then those smudged glasses put us in a greater plight than the blind man. For we think we seen things clearly when in reality our vision is severely distorted. The average college students has some filthy eyeglasses on when it comes to alcohol. And we must recognize that impaired worldview as the culprit for all those impaired drunks.

2. To deal with the situation right now, we can do all that we know to do in order to teach college students (already much too much like  "old dogs") how to make wiser decisions ("new tricks" which in the end are much more akin to old tricks, only we've forgotten them and the world has become a place where we think we need to reinvent the old tricks). So we punish, we expel, we deny, we refuse, and we beware. We finds ways to put light into the dark, because only in the dark do cockroaches find refuge. And we all, yes all, make a stand and work ardently to bring the dark to light. Then when need be, we praise, we reward, we congratulate, we welcome, and we celebrate. We make the light a desired place to be. We find ways to make alcohol abuse look wretched compared to life outside of alcohol abuse. We know how these things may be done, but we often fail to implement these charges. Rules, laws, regulations. Punishment, fines, humiliation. And rewards, acclamations, success. This is how we deal with the problems now. And in all these efforts, we do what is possible to teach discernment.

3. To deal with this situation (and others like it as well) for the future, we teach our children discernment. Spurgeon once said that "Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between right and wring; rather it is telling the difference between right and ALMOST right." We must recognize the power of this in all of life and know that this is how we are to form an intelligent and wise worldview for ourselves. In addition to teaching our children about the fears and failures of alcohol, we should teach the the ability to think. It's not just about WHAT we should think, but rather HOW we are to think. At any given moment, we all find cause to deny what we believe to know for we can justify our problems away. My close friend did so, and now she is part of the statistics; she got drunk and slept with a guy, which, in her better judgement, she NEVER would have done. She hates it. She never got an STD or birthed a child; but despite being taught those fears and denying the things she was taught to think, she hates what happened to her. She was able to deny the things she was taught to think. Yet if she was taught how to think, although she might fail at some point, she would have the discernment to make wise choices. We all lack discernment at times. But in this case, we cannot afford to make an error. And since we cannot afford to pay these faults, our college students everywhere are constantly living in debt.

I just hope that this response will be enough for my modern-minded, revolution-loving, truth-despairing teacher.

More than the Surface, Please

More Than the Surface, Please.

Unwilled observation is soon satiated and goes to sleep. Willed observation, vision with executive force behind it, is full of discernment and is continually making discoveries which keep the mind alert and interested. Get a will behind the eye and the eye becomes a searchlight, the familiar is made to disclose undreamed treasure. –Robert Traina (Grant, 1985, p. 140)

It was four in the morning. I pulled back my hair from my face and looked intently upon the photograph in hand. I knew at that moment, as I corrected an angle, darkened a shadow, and perfected a shape, that I was about to pull an all-nighter. I was completing a rather important art project, due in the afternoon of that same day. The stress was mounting and the picture was overwhelming. Yet despite all the pain of pressure, the sketch of my grandmother, standing before a Spanish-influenced cathedral, angled in such a way that the distant, neo-classic, modern buildings were included, was speaking to me. Pushed by more than the oncoming deadline, I was moved. At some point, the thick paper before me became a pallet of emotion and reality, all at once. At some point, the manipulations of lead became more than smudged powders and hard lines. At some point, the rushed manifestations of my creative thought process became art. But I had to ask myself, what is art? Was I coming close to creating something worthy of that title "art"? When does a simple vision of creativity and communication become art? Art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). In all its greatness, art has its flaws. Occasionally, art is little more than “pretty,” “interesting,” “shocking,” or downright “ugly.” All in all, none of those adjectives are bad, none communicate disaster, and all are viable characteristics of a culture (Henley, 2004, p. 79). Yet when they stand alone, they fall short of certain greatness. They fall short of substance. They fall short of something called true art.


 

Thank you, Mr. Stossel 

Not what man knows but what man feels, concerns art. All else is science. –Bernard Berenson (Kren, 2006)
John Stossel. Known for telling it like it is. He certainly rides a high horse; but oftentimes, his opinions are waist-high in ethos, logos, and pathos. On 11 March 2005, Stossel broadcast yet another Give Me a Break story, this one begging the question, “You Call That Art?” His argument is as simple and as complex as the question details. Who decides where to draw the line between that which is art and that which is junk? “How do they determine that Damien Hirst's embalmed shark and sliced cow carcasses are art?” (2005, ¶10). Stossel’s angle of persuasion was represented through a quiz available in this article, which was an excellent way to argue with the intent to find truth and make a point, rather than simply fight to be right. Stossel inquires:Do people really know what's art and what's just stuff? We ran a test. On ABCNews.com, we showed four reproductions of art works that are considered masterpieces of modern art along with six pieces that will never make it into any museum. We asked viewers to decide which work was art and which was not (2005, ¶3-5).

The pieces shown covered everything from the work of four year olds to a five dollar find at the thrift store to Willem de Kooning’s “A Tree in Naples.” The thrift-store-find won out as the most likely to be considered art. Even the professionals, artists and art historians, could not hit the nail on the head. The article clarifies, “One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as ‘a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art’” (2005, ¶19). Sometimes a search for answers leads to more questions, as exemplified when Stossel came to the notion that maybe, “it's just all in the eye of the beholder?” (2005, ¶14). Art historian, Hoover explains, "I wouldn't say it's all in the eye of the beholder […] you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning” (2005, ¶15). In which case, Stossel had yet to arrive at a definition for modern art. Then he came across one artist’s definition of art. He states, “An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, ‘The function of art is to make rich people feel more important’” (2005, ¶26). Which led Stossel to conclude his argument with the idea that “whether you think it's art or junk, the real deal is that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things” (2005, ¶29-30).
The main objective of Stossel’s argument was to address two issues: 1. To point out that much artwork, specifically modern artwork, is lacking definable and substantive signs as to its qualification to be considered “art”, 2. And to make known that taxpayer dollars are funding these illusive “masterpieces.”
Stossel’s argument was lacking, but fitting for his purposes. Art ought to be definable. “Look art” bases everything on emotionality. The story is lacking, while emotions abound. Purpose is unfounded, while action sets forth. Relief is void, while longing continues. True art is not just feeling. True art is not just knowing. True art is balance. Stossel faced the argument of when and where art becomes art, but he only stopped at your wallet. When you face down the totality of art, you should be able to reach right down into the soul. 



True Art

Truth in art does not mean doing accurate copies, but that the artist’s insight is rich and full, that he really has a good view of reality, that he does justice to the different elements of the aspect of reality he is representing. Truth has to do with the fullness of reality, its scope and meaning […] It is artistic truth! –H.R. Rookmaaker (1971, p. 237)
One of the most beautiful aspects of art is the portrayal of truth. The unique thing about truth is its multifaceted antithesis. Truth can be painful and precious. Truth can be coarse and courtly. Truth can be emotional and tangible. The portrayal of that truth all depends on the worldview of the artist. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin explains:
Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (1998, p. 29)

There exists a balance between the right to question art and the right to create art. With those rights comes the need for understanding. No matter how subjective art is capable of being, the reality portrayed in art is the same reality despite its portrayal, despite the worldview glasses of its portray-er.
Modern art often places a strong focus on “me, myself, and I” and sometimes altogether dismisses the objective of art. Art should express a balance between the fatality and the hope of humanity. It should both delve into the imperfection and the longing for perfection. It is the good and the bad. An excellent standard for the balance between the hurt and the hope of reality is Jan van Goyen’s "Landscape" done in 1646. Jan van Goyen was “possibly the greatest of all landscape painters” (Rookmaaker, 1971, p.19). In this specific painting, now held in Groninger Museum voor Stad en Lande, Holland, Goyen portrays a beautifully peaceful sea stretched out beside the coast, interrupted only by distant boats and harbor jetties. The piece is more or less simple, but the abilities to create a substantive statement of truth, as displayed in this picture, are astounding. This vast sky radiates great light while simultaneously yielding to dark storm clouds. The painting shows true art because, first, it does not picture reality as only that which we can tangibly know while. At the same time, it does not dismiss tangible reality by vying for a solely emotional reality. Second, since "Landscape" places the calm sea together with the violent storm clouds all as the arena in which the sailors live out day-to-day life, the piece makes a clear connection with reality. The brooding sky, the peaceful waters, the depiction of individuals living out life, every aspect of the painting speaks to the connection of the ephemeral with the physical sides of reality. (1971, p. 20). 
He paints reality with a fullness, rather than how perhaps another artist would like it to be or would hate it to be. Much of modern art deals with either emotions or physical realities alone. In addition to only displaying one side of the coin as it pertains to the physical and metaphysical, it is often void of a balance between the two realities of pain and hope. Much of modern art focuses on only one aspect of life, either pain or hope. There are two realities that, when combined, make our world. Although these two realities are both real apart from each other, they cannot be truth apart from each other. There are times where an artist only realizes the hope of a moment and forgets despair. And other times, artists cannot see past the despair of a moment and bypasses hope. Although both understandings of reality are valid and real and worth understanding, they cannot fulfill the whole of reality. They cannot be truth.
After deciphering which pieces of reality a piece of is embracing or ignoring, another important issue is recognizing the audience. Modern art is often depicted as being in touch with the common man, but that is not necessarily the case. Unless a common person knows the complexities of the history behind the piece of work or the complexities of the style, content, skill, creativity, et cetera of the piece of work, then the only use a modern artwork has for the common person is how it looks. Onlookers may respond, “That’s pretty; that’s ugly; that’s weird; that’s a black circle, etc.” All one can do is state the obvious and maybe hypothesize what it could possibly mean. And if it could possibly mean anything to any person, then what if, just what if, it could mean nothing altogether. Beauty is more than canvas deep. If all the “beauty” retrieved from a piece of art is found on the surface alone, then can it be true beauty? The surface alone cannot properly identify the artwork (Sylva, 1988, p. 5). Art comes with a strong legacy. Art comes with a past. Art comes with a drum role. The history of art is vital. (Yates, 1998, p. 3). When looking at any piece of art, the artwork should be held against the standards of time, through all cultures from Antiquities and on. Then and only then can Modernity come up to bat. The problem with much of modern art is that it is viewed without the breadth and depth from which it was born. Without its past, modern art is just “look art” and therefore misses out on great substance. Without an understanding of its history, it cannot be true art.



 
True Art Requires a True Artist
  
[…] we must not love in word or speech, but in deed and truth; that is how we will know we are of the truth –I John 3:18,19
 Rookmaaker defines creativity as “acting in love and freedom within given structures” (1971, p. 226). This notion is very different than how many modern day artists would be likely to define creativity. If you were to step into any museum of modern art you would see multiple pieces doing all that is possible in order to step “outside of the box.” The goal of modern art seems to be an attempt to out-do, out-shine, and out-shock the art of a metaphoric yesterday. If there is nothing new under the sun, then even the work of the avant-garde is simply a manipulated expression of feelings and ideas that existed at the onset of human culture. Looking at creativity as an act of love and freedom within given structures seems an ironic combination of terms. So perhaps art aficionado, Greg Wilbur, can lend some aid. In an excellent lecture on medieval art and its effects on art, past to present, Wilbur outlines six concepts that make way for true art. He states that these effects exemplify a standard for all art and makes the possibility of truth in art a realistic goal. He refers to artists as craftsmen. The first aspect a craftsman must live out in order to create true art is understanding truth. This seems a bit redundant, and at the same time it is so rare an occurrence that we as a people forget that in order to live out truth we must find a source of truth within life. Wilber understands truth as being the adherence to the Spirit of God. No one can tell an individual what to believe as truth, that is something that no one can simply reveal to another in an instance. It must be the result of a personal revelation of the truth. However, this does not mean that there are different truths for different people. If there is to be a truth that is true, it must be true beyond contest, despite how often it is in fact contested. That is the nature of truth verses simple facts, which are but accepted statements of information upon limited capabilities of research. (Rookmaaker, 1971, p. 234-237). We can utilize what we call facts in addition to experience in order to realize truth. It is a never-ending endeavor. But the closer to truth an artist or craftsman can arrive upon in his or her worldview, the closer that artist will get to creating true art. The second piece of the puzzle that Wilbur follows in defining true artists is ability. This talent is not exclusively something you are born with, but it is a gift that one can better through discipline. It is a gift that must be trained. Third is intelligence. The ability to reason and apply common sense allows for a backbone to deny irrationality. Wilber explains, “G.K. Chesterton spoke of the artist’s need to care for laws and limits. He said, ‘Art consists of limitation. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame’” (Wilber, 2005). Limitation is not the constriction of creativity. It is the ability to be creative in such a way the artist invents progress without resorting to the ease of creating without limits. Creativity without guidelines is not nearly as masterful as creativity with. Forth is knowledge. The “pursuit of knowledge” is the “mandate for the artist.” This brings great substance into any work of art. Fifth is craftsmanship. The artist has dominion over the craft. It requires submission to the truth “in order to subdue the media.” And last is the artist’s ability to teach. A true artist is a teacher. This passing on of the baton divorces art and ego. The true artist exhibits a “desire to prepare the rising generation […] A true teacher desires his students to surpass his works.” (Wilber, 2005). This is the context for true art and the calling of the true artist. Under these pretenses, the artist can reach truth. And the artwork must find need to follow its creator. 


 
Concluding Beauty

Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. –The Astronomer (Johnson, 1985, p. 129)
It was ten in the morning. I rubbed my eyes to keep from squinting. The night had come and gone without my sleep. I took in deep breaths as I set my large sketch upright to compare it with its photographic predecessor. It was done. I took in my handiwork and recognized what had occurred. The past, the present, and the future. They all had a role to play in this little depiction of reality. There in my grandmother’s face, I saw hope, strength, frailty, failure, triumph, and truth. I saw the world before her, yet only through her forward-looking eyes. I saw the world behind her, yet only in a glimmer of architecture and culture. I saw myself in her shoes, yet only by the curiosity of my imagination. I saw life as it was, as it is, and as it could be. So again, what is art? Yes, art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). Once an artist understands this power, utilizing reality invokes knowledge and integrity. The two forces work in tangent to develop true art. Art can be done by anyone, but true art requires true artists. It leads to a sort of wonderful and traumatic responsibility, a responsibility wonderful in its aspirations and traumatic in its ardor. The author and artist H.R. Rookmaaker describes this responsibility as a calling:
Realizing one’s possibilities, acting in love and freedom within given structures, fighting against sin and its results, all this is also what creativity means […] We are called to be creative in this sense. And we are called to bear the cross that often goes with it, for mankind often prefers darkness to light […] (1971, p. 226).
Through this identity as an artist, the objective of portraying true art is an excellent fight. This is the source of passion in art, this is the source of legacies in art, and this is the source of power in art. The stories told, the realities illustrated, the cultures identified, the worlds made known, they are all the results of an excited warfare of the best kind, the kind in which right and wrong are antithetical (Rookmaaker, 1972, p. 21). Once the battle lines are drawn, the difference between art and true art is clear. As many onlookers are drawn away from true art for the temporary satisfaction of art without truth, as Rookmaaker said, preferring “darkness to light,” the great poet of Wales, Dylan Thomas offers stalwart advice. The calling of true artists to depict true art:
“Do not go gently into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

References

Baldwin, J.F. (1998). The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen.
In The Deadliest Monster, Baldwin uses an analogy to address the issue of worldviews. Mr. Hyde symbolizes the character of a Christian worldview and Frankenstein symbolizes the character of all other worldviews.
This insightful book gives a brief explanation into many diverse worldviews. He defines the applicable terms and sets the stage for a brilliant review of culture, human nature, and the way by which one ought to form a worldview.

Day, M.D. (1992). Cultural Diversity and Discipline-based Art Education. Discipline-Based Art Education and Cultural Diversity, 34-36. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Day reports on the way by which we take in art, in the context of cultural diversity and fine art. He addresses the direction of his program DBAE as it directly adheres to the multifaceted identities of cultural differences.
He finds that art is driven by a past, one that will bring more clarity to art and the disciplined application of art.

Grant, G. (1985). Bringing in the Sheaves. Atlanta: American Vision.
This book delves into the issues and developments of poverty in the USA. Grant addresses the problems, the facts, the contexts, and the realities of modern poverty. He also brings up strong points of hope and possibility.
Throughout the work, Grant uses powerful quotes to make convincing connections. This book wraps around terms like discernment, worldview, culture, etc. and gives persuasive clarity to the issues of poverty.

Johnson, S. (1985) The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. London: Penguin Classics.
The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia is an old classic. In this tale, the young and spoiled prince Rasselas begins to yearn for a normal life, one of adventure, disappointment, success, and failure.
In this story, the prince learns a great deal about life and sets an excellent stage for the communication of many philosophical, weighty theories, ideals, identities, and worldview questions.

Henley, D. (2004). Responding to Art from Preschool to Postmodernism. The Meaningful Critique, 22 (2), 79-87. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Henley deals with the personal effects of criticism in art. He uses multiple examples and experiences to express the fact that when judgment is passed on a piece of art, the artist is impressed with a personal attack. Despite the emotions of the artist, art criticism does not necessarily translate as a personal attack.
For a good criticism to take place, the judgments must be meaningful and based in a strong understanding of art.

Rookmaaker, H.R. (1971). Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. London: Inter-Varsity.
H.R. Rookmaaker is a talented artist, author, and philosopher. In this book, he deals with the relevancy of the past as it adheres to the visual art, the problematic character of modern art, the reality of art, the messages and meanings of artistic truths, and the foundation of Christian art.
With his brilliant understanding of art history and philosophy, he creates the perfect venue for delving to truth in art.

Stossel, John. (2006) Gimme a Break. ABCNews.
.
Stossel’s “Gimme a Break” article addresses the issue of what actually constitutes a piece of art. He runs an online test to find out what onlookers believe to be art. He checks with many professions, artists, art historians, etc. to arrive at some sort of conclusion. His journey results in more questions. In the end, he does not reach a true definition but does appease his own point of understanding with relevance to the taxpayer’s pocketbooks.

Sylva, R. (1988). The Parameters of Art. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Sylva discusses the four dimensions of art engagement: 1. creation, 2. response, 3. historical inquiry, and 4. philosophical inquiry. After which he describes nine aspects of these four arenas: 1. area (fine, environmental, pragmatic); 2. medium (immediate, technological, conceptual); 3. mindset (spontaneity, precision, ingenuity);4. dimensions (four, three, two); 5. process (manipulate, add, subtract, transform); 6. approach (juxtapose, realize, synthesize); 7. intention (interpretive, expressive, formalistic);8. imagery (realistic, abstract, non-objective); and 9. subject (people, surroundings, ideas, emotions). These definitions and classifications are the tools he uses to define art.

Wilber, Greg. (2001). Medieval Art: A Seamless Theme. Unpublished dissertation, Franklin Classical School.
Wilber does an excellent job outlining the basic foundation of medieval art and the influences that this period of art had and has on art today. He discusses the worldviews and mindsets of the times. The structure of his argument compares and contrasts art from different time periods and defines how art can better depict truth. His strong viewpoint, well-grounded discussion, and cogent support made for a persuasive, understandable, and powerful presentation.

Yates, C.A. (1998). A Procedural Model for Research. Regional Art History. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
This article looks at a model for research specifically in the region of Central Ohio. Yates uses tables, research, and analysis to arrive at some conclusions concerning the way by which one can research and study regional art. While attending to the specifics of Central Ohio, he finds the utilization of historical context, literature reviews, analyses, and resourceful sampling of artworks (from 1945-95) imperative. His methods of research show the importance of context and content.

Accepting Monsters

I wrote the following paper in an attempt to see the other side of the debate. The emails shown in the entry below concerns this assignment: to make an argument for truth, make an argument for the almost-truth, then after having covered both sides of the debate, make an argument for the arrived upon conclusion. The paper listed below, titled "Accepting Monsters," is my idea of the other side of the debate, the almost-truth. I don't agree with it. I feel I could argue against each point. But it is the other side. In order to better understand my point of view on truth, I jumped into the contrary mindset. It felt ugly. But all the same, here it is below. To see the other side of this debate, the argument for truth, go to my entry titled "Defeat Monsters." All in all, I'm proud of my conclusions and feel more secure in my own understanding of truth. I have to admit that my work arguing for almost-truth isn't my best. The paper feels unorganized to me. But my paper for the truth feels much more substantial to me. If the debate of truth and almost-truth intrigues you, I suggest you read The Deadliest Monster by J.F. Baldwin. And if you get into the intrigue of monsters, I suggest you read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Stevenson and Frankenstein by Shelley. Great books.

Accepting Monsters

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley tells the horrific tale of a scientist who raises a hodge-podge, lifeless body to life. This life is forced, by the rigid, unloving race of human kind, into becoming a monster. This life began in beauty. This life began in innocence. But this life was no match for the wearying rages of humanity. An environment of isolation, loneliness and disdain creates a murderous beast. In an attempt to earn back his creator’s love, the monster appeals to Frankenstein saying, “Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample on me alone […] Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous […] If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me? I will keep no terms with my enemies. I am miserable, and they shall share in my wretchedness” (98 Shelley). The poor beast had a pure heart driven to cruelty since cruelty was all he was even shown. His environment provided for a monstrous lifestyle. He had no opportunity to become anything less than a monster. This misunderstood creature embodies a reality that the majority of human kind takes for granted. The monster of Frankenstein mirrors the monster of almost truth. The almost truth is shunned for its inability to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But this poor beast is a misunderstood creation of necessity. When the almost truth is turned away and repudiated, it can lead to a slew of grievous happenings. If our world was more receptive of monsters, what might that look like? The almost truth is a necessity of existence, as shown by examples of personal experience, media, and culture.

Before being able to see the almost truth monster at work, the foundation of understanding almost truth must be established. Understanding the almost truth begins with comprehending the three terms: worldview, discernment and convenience. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin clarifies:

Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (29)

If the “framework for understanding existence” does not make room for almost truths, then large portions of one’s worldview glasses will be clouded. This world is filled with almost truths; and if they are left alone and are turned away, the world will appear severely distorted. With a clouded worldview, the ramifications of what almost truth has to offer will be unclear. This notion reveals a greatly under-appreciated concept. The difference between the almost truth and outright lies is vital to the issue. Renowned orator, Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said that, “Discernment is not telling the difference between right and wrong; rather it is telling the difference between right and almost right” (Grant). Discernment values almost truth, because it has a closer link with reality than that which is falsehood. The truth works like the body of a human; the almost truth acts as the appendages of that human. “Right” and “almost right” relate strongly with one another; so if you completely cut off one from the other, it would be as if you were cutting the arm off a man. Accepting the almost truth is a headway for the truth. As a result, almost truths are then found acceptable and often incontestable. Fortunately, a false reality created by almost truth is often easier to face and therefore found desirable. It can be comforting or enjoyable to live at hands of this monster. This perception, when acted upon, becomes an issue of convenience. Author of Do You Think I’m Beautiful?, Angela Thomas writes, “I have concocted a few lies to make life hurt less and then forced myself to live them” (6). If Angela Thomas had recognized those lies as almost truths, then perhaps she could have become more comfortable living out a less truthful, less painful existence. If she were capable of accepting a supposed monster, the beauty of living out almost truth would be ever apparent. Through a better understanding of worldview, discernment and convenience, the almost truth monster is pinned down. Now through examples of personal experience, media, and cultural conducts, the monster of almost truth can be found worthy, beneficial and acceptable.

First, the example of personal experiences shows how almost truth actually enables people simply to make it through a day. Many people face problems and realities too grand, too intense, too much for a single person to swallow. These people often enact the power of almost truth in order to make it through life. Imagine a cancer patient, given slim to nil odds, who gets through the day telling oneself that despite the odds the can and will be all right. Many people call it denial; but case after case shows that a cancer patient using this almost truth has a higher chance at defeating the cancer. If a Frankenstein-type person came into the picture denying the almost truth monsters, the results would be detrimentally discouraging for the cancer patient. In this case, confronting a painful truth leads to no good and therefore makes the truth irrelevant. But if the meek and mild monster of almost truth is given the chance, it will lead an eventual path to the truth.

Within the same thread of personal experiences, consider a person who is battling phobias of all shapes and sizes. For every fear out there, there is a falsehood, a truth and therefore an almost truth. Each battle necessitates certain almost truths in order to face down an average day. Someone facing gerascophobia (the fear of growing old) has to engage the almost truth daily. The falsehood for someone suffering a fear of growing old is that there is something terribly wrong, frightening and evasive about growing old. The truth is that growing old is natural and, in many ways, beautiful. Since the truth is not immediately an obtainable option for the person with gerascophobia, the almost truth is the only viable combatant—growing old is not a big deal. However, growing old means huge changes; it means drastic transformations; it is a big deal. If a Frankenstein-type person were to walk up to one with gerascophobia and refute the humble, well-mannered monster of almost truth, one with said phobia would become incapable of making strides toward the real truth and would be forced into a life of continued fear. The same can be said of almost any phobia. The almost truth, in the case of most personal experiences, is therefore the headway for truth and is necessary for countless people.

Last in the theme of personal experiences shows a clear picture of how the almost truth is capable of operating. The last example of personal experiences confronts the notion of alcoholism and specifically how it is dealt with under the guidance of an organization called Alcoholics Anonymous or A. A. This organization leads people who abuse alcohol through a twelve-step program, after which these sufferers of alcohol stasis should be able to face down their demons and defeat the vice of alcoholism. Yet just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, the alcoholic didn’t put an end to abuse in a day. One of the many notions that A. A. is known for says to take things one day at a time. This idea, upon a closer inspection, proves to be an excellent and simplistic almost truth that is invaluable to many. The reality is that when someone addicted to alcohol goes on an attack against the disease, they are headed in for a long-term battle. The end to alcohol abuse is not found upon sunrise the next day or the day after that. The end to the problem with alcohol abuse may not even be a definable occurrence. Victory has nothing to do with the day to day, yet that happens to be the only way to win the battle against alcohol. Based on an almost truth, alcoholics can crush this debilitating sickness. Yet without this almost truth, the scope of real victory may seem completely out of reach. Throughout the lives of countless individuals, the almost truth monster plays a crucial role.

Second, just as the mild monster of almost truth comes to life in the form of personal experiences, the monster of almost truth can also be found in the workings of American media. A brief look into what constitutes media would present the multiple expressions of propaganda—which manifests itself throughout industries of style, music, politics, sports, news, etc. Each arena is selling something. Often the ideas that the public sees, likes and buys from media identify some sort of almost truth. To help illustrate that point we can zero in on American media and specifically Hollywood. Hollywood has created some pretty strong ideas of what perfection ought to look like. Each idea could easily be called an almost truth. Some of those ideas are tagged with rather negative presuppositions. However many of those almost truths are quite necessary and lead to certain realities possibly unobtainable otherwise. F. Scott Fitzgerald clarifies through what is known as the ultimate Hollywood novel, The Last Tycoon:

I accepted Hollywood with the resignation of a ghost assigned to a haunted house. I knew what you were supposed to think about it but I was obstinately unhorrified. This is easy to say, but harder to make people understand. [Some] who pretended an indifference to Hollywood or its products, really hated it. Hated it way down deep as a threat to their existence. […] You can take Hollywood for granted […] or you can dismiss it with the contempt we reserve for what we don’t understand. It can be understood too, but only dimly and in flashes. (3,4)

Perhaps many people distance themselves from Hollywood simply because they have chosen to refute the gentle almost truth monster. The truth is that the image of perfection created by Hollywood is rather impractical. Perfection in Hollywood is comprised of beauty, riches, love and therefore happiness. But beauty in Hollywood is not always clear, riches can come and go, and love fades like a withering flower. So is happiness even possible? Despite the ephemeral appearance of Hollywood’s idea of perfection, the continuance of these almost truths are important. First, everyday the monster of almost truth in Hollywood has driven people away from seeking out a life that is not their own. Successful careers in Hollywood require and demand a great deal of talent, looks, personality and more. The strict criteria of Hollywood has turned away many, allowing each of those people to seek out a lifestyle better suited to their capabilities, needs and realities. The almost truth that you have to completely fulfill the demands of Hollywood in order to find success and happiness has either driven people to turn away from an unnecessary life path or driven them to work harder to earn their way to the top. Second, on the other side of the Hollywood ideal, we can find another victory in the name of accepting the almost truth monster. Hollywood depicts glimpses of reality the way we long it to be, and therefore gives headway for a greater truth. This greater truth speaks unto how things could be. It foretells the possibility of what happiness can look like. This notion may come across as idealism and utopianism, but rather it is simply the beautiful picture of hope. This is the story of Hollywood. The story of hope is the great enterprise of Hollywood. Without the almost truths of Hollywood, this notion of hope would be but a glimmer in the eyes of countless people. But the profound monster of almost truth has assembled a wonderful adventure within the worlds of film, fashion, fame and fantasy. As shown through the example of media, the almost truth is a beneficial necessity of life.

Third, as with the examples of personal experiences and media, the almost truth proves a vital part of humanity throughout the thread of cultures. Cultures display unique varieties on how human kind partakes in this little thing called life. Each and every culture lives out a very different set of standards and ethics based on a system of beliefs. Oftentimes these differences between cultures are seen as barriers. However, the differences of how we each deal with reality are most likely our strongest ties together. You see, daily each person in this world is living out an almost truth that applies directly to a personal worldview and cultural identity. Now the almost truths may vary throughout the many cultures of the world, but the enactment of almost truth is the same worldwide. To explain this notion, we can pick out several points of interest that will highlight the issues at hand. One example of a cultural issue that points out the power of the almost truth monster is the very basic concept, which bounces around high schools everywhere in America: You must complete your education in order to be successful. In reality, your academic career is not necessarily required for success. Many great entrepreneurs have never attended college, and some did not even complete high school. The almost truth about education has driven many students to seek out a higher education in order to become better in their career-fields. Although the almost truth pushes people to do something that could be seen as unnecessary, it also causes people to work harder and more effectively. A high school and college education offers a number of advantages in the workplace and gives an opportunity for growth and development. If this mild monster were altogether rejected, a great amount of the populace would not be in the places or be the people that they are today. Although you can find success without college, the monster driving home this almost truth has made way for great things. Another cultural almost truth monster that has brought about good things is found in the idea of personal space. In America, personal space is a key element of societal existence. In many other countries, the term personal space is unheard of. Some countries outside of America understand the idea but in alternative ways. For example, when you greet someone, you kiss the new or old acquaintance on the cheeks. It is an expression of compassion. It is a custom the people. In America, a handshake will suffice or even the occasional friendly nod will do. Although the two greetings differ greatly, they both hold the capacity to express the same things. They could both express the extremes of genuine affection or polite disassociation. Both can be patterns of conformity or patterns of respectful courtesy. If the two divergent forms of salutation are capable of communicating the same basic issues, then why do we purposefully and intently teach our children, our future generations to take on these customs. In America, why do we push the idea of personal space upon our children? Is it because America is impersonal and uncompassionate? Not necessarily. Communicating the need for personal space to our young is a way of implementing patterns of behavior that will benefit them in their future workplaces and endeavors. And in Peru, communicating the idea of personal space or possibly the lack there of will also implement a pattern of behavior that will lend for success. Personal space is a good example of a partial truth that is beneficial and in many ways necessary for cultural acceptance. The many cultural almost truths are vital for society. If we deny these endearing little monsters of our cultural heritage, then in turn we deny an element of truth wrapped in the “almost.”

As exemplified by the almost truths found in personal experiences, media and culture, the little monsters of almost truth are deserving of acceptance. They are often necessary and beneficial. Sir Walter Raleigh’s wonderfully passionate poem “The Lie” explains:

Go, soul, the body’s guest,

Upon a thankless errand;

Fear not to touch the best;

The truth shall be thy warrant.

Go, since I needs must die,

And give the world the lie.

The truth is that lies and harmless balderdash are often what our world requires. To stray from the outright harm that the truth is capable of, we must go out into our worlds and do nothing less than offer up our best lies. Anything less would be detrimental. We must avoid a Frankenstein mentality. How will you handle monsters? Will you disown them for their inability to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or will you be able to take them on for what they are rather than what they are not? Can you accept monsters?

Selected Bibliography

Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen, 1998.

Bragg, Sarah. Body. Beauty. Boys. Birmingham: New Hope, 2006.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Last Tycoon. London: Bantam, 1976.

Grant, George. “Flash Gordon Worldview.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 29 Nov. 2004.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003.

Thomas, Angela. Do You Think I’m Beautiful? Nashville: Nelson, 2003.

A Valued Conversation.

I was looking back through some old work to see if I could incorporate anything from past assignments for one of my current classes. I came across an e-mail conversation I had with my honors teacher. The topic concerns relativism vs absolutism. I value this conversation not just for the praise my teacher offers (encouragment is important to him, even when occansionally it might be "forced"). The main reason I value this conversation is because I felt like I made a difference. Maybe it's not immediate change, I'm glad it's not immediate (no revolutions here, just reformations-- thank you very much). And most importantly, I stood up for my beliefs without harming my relationships with my teacher and the class. I stood up for my beliefs to the best of my meager abilities. I stood up for my beliefs and may have planted some seeds. It was interesting, as was the class. Below, I've changed the names (although it was totally unnecessary to do so) and my e-mails are in red while my teacher's are in blue. So here it is:


Jane (my project parnter) told me she sent you her exploratory essay...I just wanted to see if you had any advice for me as I get farther into the first draft. It's going to be harder for me to take this paper seriously because I don't really believe in it; but I guess creating a viable argument for something that I could easily argue against is part of rhetoric. Thanks for any help you may have to offer!!
Kala

I didn’t make time to look at it. I was actually waiting for revised drafts so that I could see what you were considering a more-or-less finished product. But it surprises me that you don’t see some value in what you are arguing. It seems to me you’ve had that experience this semester. I suspect prior to all of the discussion of absolutism and relativism, you would have—if simply given a definition—considered yourself only an absolutist. I may be wrong, but I got the sense that you would have recoiled from the idea of relativism at all. And yet, within a framework of absolutism, perhaps absolutism slightly redefined for yourself, you have come to see that you have bits of both. Weren’t you operating from an understanding that has grown and gained dimension, that has become more complete and more rich? Isn’t it possible that this understanding will grow still further, that your partial understanding now—which guides your life—will be transformed again and again? Isn’t this part of your argument, that partial truths don’t have to be monsters, that they can be foundations we consider positive, and they too are imperfect, that they too grow and change?
Joe

Thank you! I loved your words in the email you sent me. It all sounds beautiful! But...
In response: Yes, I do now have a more whole understanding of what it is that I actually believe; but I feel I am just as repulsed by and clear-minded about relativism as before. I still believe in antithesis and always will; but I also believe in balance and always have. I think the biggest change in my views is more on the side of understanding where they come from and how they ought to be presented--presented not with pragmatism or pacifism, rather with a hearty helping of reality (or as much of reality as I can get my hands on). I see value in my argument, but only as the means to further understanding the other side of the debate. If I can convincingly argue for something in which I do not believe, I think I will have a better handle on this thing called truth. I was initially wondering (perhaps worrying) that at some point of convincing, I'd start convincing myself. But the further I get into the research, the more I feel that my beliefs are in the right. You are likely to be right in saying that I would have previously considered myself an absolutist, yet only one in theory. Now I can only consider myself a truth-searcher, a truth-fighter, and--until someone convinces me otherwise-- a truth-obtainer. I agree that my understanding of things will forever be transforming; yet I doubt (I resist saying "I know" for the sake of being "open") that it will ever depart from my current foundation of beliefs. And in the end, for this presentation I will be arguing that almost truths don't have to be monsters. Yet I feel that almost truths are monsters, and just because they are accepted does not make them okay. In fact, if our world was in a position capable of facing truth and recognizing all monsters; well it just might be a good thing. Sure almost truths can be beneficial, but imagine if we had no need of them at all...that's what I wish we could all aspire toward. I do not believe it too idealistic a dream. Perhaps it is. But that just makes it all the more worth fighting for.
Thank you again for that email! I truly appreciate that you care and that you understand this is the stuff that matters most.
Kala

I have truly enjoyed our emails throughout the semester, and I am already missing these exchanges in advance for next semester. You are an incredibly thoughtful student, and you make it easy to enjoy teaching. Thanks for all the gifts you’ve given to the class and to me.
Joe