Beatnik

Beatnik: (n) a young person in the 1950s and early 1960s belonging to a subculture associated with the beat generation.Dictionary B

Trends and fads have one thing in common: they have a commencement with no graduation, also having a beginning minus destination. For that reason, it’s difficult to assess their genesis, or comprehend their exodus.

But if you take a moment and think about it, every movement goes through three stages:

  1. Purity
  2. Parity
  3. Paltry

Our new ideas often begin with purity.

Like beatniks.

I believe the purpose of such a social awakening was to become more introspective and discover our inner selves and how we relate to the world around us.

Quite noble.

But for an idea to become popular, you have to be able to market it without promoting its more cerebral aspects. So eventually the beatnik generation sought parity by wearing black berets and turtlenecks. It was an easy way to identify a fellow beatnik.

Yes, often our greatest movements are shrunken to a simple fashion statement.

Then, once they became tired of wearing their costumes, they decided to just maintain the angst. Thus, the 1960s and 1970s.

We ended up with a paltry representation of self-realization–actually merely an adolescent temper tantrum to anything our parents did.

After all, there would have been no objection to the war in Vietnam if there weren’t a draft blowing young men into military service.

So how is it possible to keep the purity without insisting on parity and ending up with paltry?

I don’t know.

But I think it is the job of writers, who detour their material through the brain, to insist on considering such idealism.

 

Donate Button

Thank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix

 

 

 

Advertisements

Adam

Words from Dic(tionary)

by J. R. Practix

dictionary with letter A

Adam: (in the Bible) the first man. According to the Book of Genesis, Adam was created by God as the progenitor of the human race, and lived with Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Ape or dust? Darwin or Genesis?

This appears to be our choice.

Would I prefer to incorporate into my thinking that I am a highly evolved primate, who sometime back in my distant history became the offspring of a smart monkey, who decided to walk out from among the trees and mate with another smart monkey, who eventually, over generations, created smarter and smarter monkeys?

Or would I rather believe in fairy dust, formed by the hands of a Spirit which rules the universe, to create the flesh and blood of a human being, completely intact, needing no evolution, and arriving on the scene adult, intelligent and whole?

Wow.

So here’s what I came up with: I have decided to look at the progress of the human race instead of studying its lineage. This is what I see–we are better off believing, pursuing and walking in a philosophy that tells us we came from a garden instead of a jungle.

If we follow the contentions of our dear brother, Darwin, we will justify our irrational, selfish and even destructive behavior–which wants to kill to eat.

If we hold sacred the notion of God being “breathed” into human beings, we will need to follow through on that idea by understanding that we are a people geared to planting and harvesting.

You would have to agree–there IS a massive difference.

Perhaps in a more jaded frame of mind, I would point to historical facts which might make us temporarily believe that we are more similar to our ancestors who hunted down game for survival without mercy. But there are too many examples of times when the human spirit has triumphed and snatched defeat out of the jaws of insanity for us to ignore the creative spark of generosity and holiness that seems inbred.

I think it’s really that simple. The success you will have in your life, your relationships, your family, your business and in all of your interactions with the creatures on the planet we share will be determined by whether you roam this earth as a jungle or till it as a garden.

Do I believe the entire Genesis account? I believe that we are better as gardeners than we are as high-minded, angry monkeys.

And I think somewhere along the line, whether either account is completely true or false, or a blending of one another, when it comes to pushing forward the ideals of humanity, we would do better to present ourselves as Old McDonald instead of King Kong.

Acetabulum

by J. R. Practix

dictionary with letter A

Acetabulum: (n.)  the socket of the hipbone, into which the head of the femur fits. SPECIAL USAGE: any cup-shaped structure, espcially a sucker.

Skeletons freak me out.

I think I talked about this a few days ago–the idea that we have an “inside” to our “outside” often leaves me beside myself.

Especially when you realize how we’re constructed both in a practical–but also in a weird way. This is never so true as when you look at that socket for the hip–the way it kind of rolls around in there, appearing to have absolutely no practical way to function.

So when I get in a room with a person advocating the theory of evolution over anything else, and an individual who insists on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story, I am baffled at how both of them fail to recognize how “fearfully and wonderfully” the human being is made.

I don’t care if there were billions of years of evolution–there is NO way that a single cell could EVER become a hip bone.

I‘m sorry. It’s impossible.

Somewhere along the line, there were LEAPS. What caused those leaps? I know that scientists have their own rendition of the mutations and interventions of nature, which may have instigated such spannings of the chasm. But honestly, when I look at an acetabulum and how it functions–how it rolls and how it’s supposed to last for a LONG time–I am massively in awe.

I guess I am one of those freaks who just believes that it’s ALL true. My concept of God is that He is kind of like a tourist visiting New York City for the first time. He literally wears Himself out, running from one site to another, enjoying every single moment of the vacation, refusing to miss any possible hallmark of the experience.

I think God likes to do it all. I think God tinkered with the amoeba and I think God messed with people. I think He enjoys perfecting things instead of pursuing the perfect.

So when I look at that hip-joint (which I don’t like to do for very long, by the way) I am convinced that there is more that went into that particular invention than we could ever imagine on this earthly plane. In other words, it took the best of evolution, it took the best of intelligent design, it took the best of mutation and it took the best of creation.

The mistake that most people make with God is that they feel empowered by discovering who He is or who He isn’t, and then they box Him up.

There IS no box for God. The minute we tell Him that He can’t do something, He’s already done it. And the minute we’re convinced that He does not exist in any way, shape or form, He goes ahead and finds a form … to shape our way.