A Woman who communicated

        Arrival is about so much more than aliens coming to earth and a linguistics professor and a physicist working with their teams to try to communicate. It is pretty amazing.

So, Emily was probably going to pick this movie that none of us had watched and I blanked out on that bit of info and watched it on my own before we watched it together. It is a movie well worth a re-watch. In a way, it is like watching 6th Sense over again, I saw things from a different perspective having seen the ending, and consequently, I saw a lot more of what was going on. For that reason, I am not going to tell many details, I will however say that this shows an amazing development in the main lady, from desolate to really consciously living. She becomes captivating.

It is a quiet sort of movie; I recall very little vulgar or offensive language; the violence is second hand; and there is no excessive sensuality at all. What humor is present is quiet. The colors are quiet, often blue-toned, lending to a sort of melancholy feel. There were a few moments when the music seemed a bit heavy handed, but I can kind of understand why they would play those sounds when they did—thematically. It still drove me out of the scene a little. Speaking of scene, the filmography was beautiful. I loved the use of clouds and wind on the one hand and TV and intercom screens on the other.

On the writing, I loved how minor characters still felt like living people; they made good use of background and side interactions. One character speaks pretty dismissively of a lot of the people at the camp that is set up near the alien shell in Montana. It seems as though maybe the writer was not quite so dismissive. Rather in contrast to that is the attitude of the colonel who fetches the civilians who are helping out. He tells Ian, the physicist, and Louise, the linguist, after they started sparring a little over the importance of math versus language, that “That is why you're both here. And I'll get your coffee.” He seemed like he would be one of those heroes that nobody knows about; he just goes and does his best to do whatever job he has with the least amount of fuss and fewest casualties possible.

For Louise's part, she is pretty intense as she gets into this figuring out the aliens thing keeping in mind the end goal. It was interesting to watch that, especially as a teacher interested in languages. One of her first, though not the first, break-through moments with the aliens comes when she removes some of her protective gear and identifies herself with her name instead of just the generic “human” identifier. That really made the guys backing them up nervous-- “Do we abort?” While most were concerned about security, potential dangers, the aliens as potential threat, Louise saw them as beings with which to communicate, potential teachers, even. She personalized the communication, and that is what started the breakthrough to be able to understand the aliens.

Like I said, I do not want to give away to much about the plot, so I will leave you with those tid-bits and one more: the aliens are named Abbot and Costello.

Doubt

I sometimes listen to the Graveyard Shift podcast, a few pastors in Ireland rambling on in conversation that might be sort of started or centered on an event or article that caught one or more of their attentions. It can be interesting, sometimes funny, sometimes thought provoking. In the one with a title playing on “nuns” and “nones” it was said that doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is. There was a statement made that, while we believe certain things, we have to admit that it is not certain. This reminded me of the annoying saying that “to question is the answer”, as though it would be any good to go through life asking questions without seeking answers. To sincerely question, one must be seeking an answer; if there is an answer, it could be that somethings are, in fact, certain. Anyway, one of them in particular helped to clarify a position that made more sense--that while we question and seek, doubt should not be idealized.
A few days later I ran into a Youtube series by a friar talking about Harry Potter and the Catholic Faith. He, when talking about faith as a virtue, described two different types of doubt--a doubt that is felt and a doubt that is chosen. I might feel as though I am alone, but know that God is with me and accordingly act in faith. If I feel that God is absent and act according to that feeling--that is another story. I might feel like a wretch of a sinner--in for a penny, in for a pound--but knowing God’s grace and by his grace, I can stop and pray with the angels and saints to our merciful Lord and Savior. If I act according to that feeling--how wretched I am!

If the doubt they are speaking of on the Graveyard Shift is the first class of doubt, I can at least agree with doubt not being the opposite of faith. The problem is that the concept is proposed with saying things like “I believe this, but it might not be true.” Ok. On some things, fair enough. I believe Joan of Arc really had visions; I do not empirically know that, and, sure, I could be wrong. I doubt it, though. However, That is not a matter of salvation. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God who was born, died, buried, rose on the third day--if we are not certain about that, are we even Christians? Again, I may not have empirical proof, I may not be able to touch his wounds or thrust my hands into his side, but I do have the witness of his apostles who did personally see his resurrected body. I do have the testimony of the Church that he founded that endured popular persecution and a time of regional popularity followed by popular scorn again. The point is, the gates of hell have never prevailed; she still exists just as Jesus said she would.
I have historical proof, at least, of Jesus existence, but what about the belief in the Trinity or the belief that scripture was inspired by God? I do not doubt that the Trinity is a good description of God. I do not doubt that the whole Bible, including the choosing of what books are in it, was inspired by God. I suppose, for argument’s sake, I could say that I might be wrong about these things. To say that, though, should not be mistaken for humility. That would be to say that the Church, which God founded, might be wrong about these things, which would be to say that maybe the gates of hell did prevail or maybe it was all only types and myths anyway. Why even believe in the actual historical Jesus? Surely a spiritual resurrection is a enough! But if that bodily Resurrection is not true, then, as Paul said, we are most pitiable.

 Where does that leave us? Maybe underground with a queen dressed in silks green as poison who says, “There is no sun.”
The point, then, is not what we doubt, but what we choose to believe.

A "multi-lingual mind"

Once there was an e-mail group called Cumberlist.  Before, and shortly before it was dissolved into an internet forum,  someone pondered the significance of the multi-lingual culture in New Testament times and asked for people to share how exposure or familiarity with other languages affected our thought processes and perception.  I began a response, within the context of the e-mail environment, but the group was dissolved and nothing came of it.  At least nothing happened for a while, but as I was deleting e-mails and trying to track down the new forum that is three years old, I discovered it.

Here it is, mildly edited.

The other day I was typing out a statement and question and had a sibling looking over my shoulder while I typed.  As I was about to send it, She commented that what I had written did not sound like it came from someone whose first language was English.  I looked over what I had typed--it was grammatically correct but the phrasing was a bit backwards to "normal" American speech.

I often do that sort of thing, probably because I have at different times immersed myself in poetry, King James, older literature and things of that nature, and I have learned enough of one foreign language to communicate in a limited fashion (it was even put to the test this past summer, 2013), and regularly pick up tid-bits of whatever language I encounter.

Does all of that affect perception?  Of course.  Perception is molded by an individuals schema of knowledge, experience, biases.  As far as how things are described,well, the above example illustrates that if nothing else it affects the mechanics of how I describe things, but I also believe it affects the spirit in which I describe things.  Little things like the waves saying hello, las olas diciendo 'hola,' or realizing the connection in a Latin root of some word, or using "nice" in a way not common currently.  I do try to tailor my language a bit in order to be better understood, but at times I run into the difficulty of trying to say a particular thing and feeling as though my descriptions for clarification are only further muddying the water because while I am speaking English, it does not fit into the accustomed range of English.  So I try again.

Since I am a teacher I do try to encourage a broadening of my students vocabulary, both English and --other.  After all, nothing quite says "be quiet" in as lovely and direct a way as "fermez la bouche," and what 5th grade vocabulary would be complete without words like "quintessential" or "gnarled" or the unfortunate "ass-that-means-donkey" (courtesy of teaching Bible class with a King James translation)?  In all seriousness, though, it does seem that often the younger grades are the most receptive to new words, and the more unusual the more delightful they find them.  So, while they are in my class, I do not absolutely remove exact language, but instead use reasonably precise language and explain where needed.  I also require my students to use good grammar and ask them questions when they are being vague to try to help them learn to express themselves more clearly.  Much of the time, this process seems to make things more clear than they might otherwise be.  Other times, though, we still struggle with communication.

I do think it is very important to be able to mentally take yourself outside your own language box to try to understand unfamiliar communication.  Rather than, "what am I hearing?"  (answer might be, "bwgoaogogefgf. . .") asking, "what are they trying to say?"  (They seem upset, hungry? do they need food or tea?)  This is something everyone should learn to do, and while being bilingual might help, I think the philosophy of the individual may be almost more important in determining how well they are able to do this.