Michael Spencer a.k.a. the internet monk is always worth reading.
His posting on How Religious Parents Royally Screw Up Their Children is especially worth reading.
Michael raises 8 points;
(1) By trying to raise sinless childrem.
(2) By telling children they are specially called by God- from birth to ministry.
(3) By using religion as punishment.
(4) Saying 'God told us to' as your reason for parental decisions.
(5) By having a constant fear of what is normal.
(6) By lying and consistently making ignorant statements.
(7) By obsessing on Satan and demons.
(8) By ignoring culture and isolating your children from it.
Now read the whole article.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Internet Monk on Raising Children
Michael Spencer a.k.a. the internet monk is always worth reading.
His posting on How Religious Parents Royally Screw Up Their Children is especially worth reading.
Michael raises 8 points;
(1) By trying to raise sinless childrem.
(2) By telling children they are specially called by God- from birth to ministry.
(3) By using religion as punishment.
(4) Saying 'God told us to' as your reason for parental decisions.
(5) By having a constant fear of what is normal.
(6) By lying and consistently making ignorant statements.
(7) By obsessing on Satan and demons.
(8) By ignoring culture and isolating your children from it.
Now read the whole article.
His posting on How Religious Parents Royally Screw Up Their Children is especially worth reading.
Michael raises 8 points;
(1) By trying to raise sinless childrem.
(2) By telling children they are specially called by God- from birth to ministry.
(3) By using religion as punishment.
(4) Saying 'God told us to' as your reason for parental decisions.
(5) By having a constant fear of what is normal.
(6) By lying and consistently making ignorant statements.
(7) By obsessing on Satan and demons.
(8) By ignoring culture and isolating your children from it.
Now read the whole article.
Nothing is What It Seems
The Illusionist (2006) is one of few rare movies I have watched recently that had me intrigued, guessing and trying to figure out the outcome of the story until the end.It is a period movie set in the early 20th century in Vienna. The props and sets were beautiful. It is a romance, with a twist in the plot (I love those) and had me wondering what is real and what is not.
Eisenheim (Edward Norton), the Illusionist was the son of a cabinetmaker who fell in love with a Duchness Sophie von Teschen (Jessica Biel) when they were children. They were separated because of their different stations in life. Eisenheim left to explore the world and to learn the art of illusion. 15 years later Eisenheim came to Vienna and started a magician show. There he met Sophia who is about to marry evil Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). The prince was plotting to overthrow his father, the Emperor and takes the throne. Love was rekindled and Eisenheim need to get rid of the Crown Prince if he and Sophia were to have a normal life. Eisenheim subsequently came to a faceoff with chief police inspector (Paul Giamatti) who was the prince's henchman.
The way Eisenheim's plan work is full of illusion, deception, manipulation and magic, making the prince's police inspector work against him. The line is blurred between illusion and magic... reality and fantasy...power and helplessness. The movie-line is a complex plot for two lovers to escape their social destinies.
Burger, the producer conducted extensive research into magic, as well as the setting of the story: fin-de-siècle Vienna. "I read everything I could about the Hapsburgs, about the Secessionist movement, and about the magic from that time-both the illusions themselves and the social world of the magicians. Most of the tricks that ended up in the film are based on real illusions done at the time, and the characters I invented are also based on real people. I wanted it all to be as believable and honest as possible, all the more so since the story examines the idea of how we perceive truth and illusion...and blurs the boundary between those two concepts. If you're going to exaggerate certain elements, to have it be dreamlike or surreal or uncanny, you have to make sure that the rest of it has a rock solid foundation in the period." read more.
Good movie to watch with children but be prepared to have to explain to them how the many illusions work. On the other hand, with the many special effects in movies nowadays, don't bother.
.
Nothing is What It Seems
The Illusionist (2006) is one of few rare movies I have watched recently that had me intrigued, guessing and trying to figure out the outcome of the story until the end.It is a period movie set in the early 20th century in Vienna. The props and sets were beautiful. It is a romance, with a twist in the plot (I love those) and had me wondering what is real and what is not.
Eisenheim (Edward Norton), the Illusionist was the son of a cabinetmaker who fell in love with a Duchness Sophie von Teschen (Jessica Biel) when they were children. They were separated because of their different stations in life. Eisenheim left to explore the world and to learn the art of illusion. 15 years later Eisenheim came to Vienna and started a magician show. There he met Sophia who is about to marry evil Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). The prince was plotting to overthrow his father, the Emperor and takes the throne. Love was rekindled and Eisenheim need to get rid of the Crown Prince if he and Sophia were to have a normal life. Eisenheim subsequently came to a faceoff with chief police inspector (Paul Giamatti) who was the prince's henchman.
The way Eisenheim's plan work is full of illusion, deception, manipulation and magic, making the prince's police inspector work against him. The line is blurred between illusion and magic... reality and fantasy...power and helplessness. The movie-line is a complex plot for two lovers to escape their social destinies.
Burger, the producer conducted extensive research into magic, as well as the setting of the story: fin-de-siècle Vienna. "I read everything I could about the Hapsburgs, about the Secessionist movement, and about the magic from that time-both the illusions themselves and the social world of the magicians. Most of the tricks that ended up in the film are based on real illusions done at the time, and the characters I invented are also based on real people. I wanted it all to be as believable and honest as possible, all the more so since the story examines the idea of how we perceive truth and illusion...and blurs the boundary between those two concepts. If you're going to exaggerate certain elements, to have it be dreamlike or surreal or uncanny, you have to make sure that the rest of it has a rock solid foundation in the period." read more.
Good movie to watch with children but be prepared to have to explain to them how the many illusions work. On the other hand, with the many special effects in movies nowadays, don't bother.
.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Christianity in Star Wars
John McDowell published The Gospel According to Star Wars, Faith, Hope and the Force in March 2007. This promises to be an interesting read.
John writes,
Instead, it is important to hear Lucas’ efforts to tell the story of the good life and signs of its fragility, disruptability and corruptibility for what they are (although here one needs to be careful lest the communicative act of Star Wars’ production be limited to a single voice, that of the auteur).
What is revealing about Lucas’ own efforts is that he has claimed that Christianity was not up to the job, being distorted by an ultimate self-seeking – a being godly for the sake of self-gain. In this process of listening, critical listening I might add, the way in which this set of movies is both culturally produced (a product of its time and place) and culturally productive (generative of cultural imaginations) is revealing.
It is expressive of: the ways in which the sources for the enrichment and fulfilment of spiritual desires have shifted in post-Christian societies, the style of pluralist ethos (Lucas’ Force is largely a Western liberal creation), the manner of the reduction of all artefacts to entertainment value by many in Western cultures (the fact, for instance, that Star Wars has become associated purely with ‘popcorn entertainment’), popularly located forms of resistance to dominant cultural values (Lucas’ resistance to neo-conservative politics), the ways in which various modes of Christian thinking receive popular cultural texts, and so on.
But something that is frequently missed in the rush to associate Lucas’ mythological borrowings with various Eastern philosophies is the sets of values that remain broadly Christian in a cinematic text composed on Western soil. read more
I find it fascinating to note that John have linked the philosophy of Star Wars with Christianity, and commented "Lucas'Force is largely a Western liberal creation." I have not heard what George Lucas had said about his "Force", so I am speaking from an Asian perspective. The force to me, is the tao, which is everywhere and nowhere. The whole movie series is a continuous cycle of human sufferings due to their attachments, betrayal and redemption.
Yes, it could be Christian. But it could also be Buddhist, Taoism or even Zen. Is it a commentary of socio-political-economic situations or about an intergenerational human pilgrimage? Are we reading too much into it? Would John have a different perspective if he is writing from an Asian country where religious pluralism, multiculturalism, and political dominance by society that is post colonialism but with no Christian cultural legacy.
Are we talking about contextual theology here? It will be interesting to continue the conversation.
More thots....
John writes,
Instead, it is important to hear Lucas’ efforts to tell the story of the good life and signs of its fragility, disruptability and corruptibility for what they are (although here one needs to be careful lest the communicative act of Star Wars’ production be limited to a single voice, that of the auteur).
What is revealing about Lucas’ own efforts is that he has claimed that Christianity was not up to the job, being distorted by an ultimate self-seeking – a being godly for the sake of self-gain. In this process of listening, critical listening I might add, the way in which this set of movies is both culturally produced (a product of its time and place) and culturally productive (generative of cultural imaginations) is revealing.
It is expressive of: the ways in which the sources for the enrichment and fulfilment of spiritual desires have shifted in post-Christian societies, the style of pluralist ethos (Lucas’ Force is largely a Western liberal creation), the manner of the reduction of all artefacts to entertainment value by many in Western cultures (the fact, for instance, that Star Wars has become associated purely with ‘popcorn entertainment’), popularly located forms of resistance to dominant cultural values (Lucas’ resistance to neo-conservative politics), the ways in which various modes of Christian thinking receive popular cultural texts, and so on.
But something that is frequently missed in the rush to associate Lucas’ mythological borrowings with various Eastern philosophies is the sets of values that remain broadly Christian in a cinematic text composed on Western soil. read more
I find it fascinating to note that John have linked the philosophy of Star Wars with Christianity, and commented "Lucas'Force is largely a Western liberal creation." I have not heard what George Lucas had said about his "Force", so I am speaking from an Asian perspective. The force to me, is the tao, which is everywhere and nowhere. The whole movie series is a continuous cycle of human sufferings due to their attachments, betrayal and redemption.
Yes, it could be Christian. But it could also be Buddhist, Taoism or even Zen. Is it a commentary of socio-political-economic situations or about an intergenerational human pilgrimage? Are we reading too much into it? Would John have a different perspective if he is writing from an Asian country where religious pluralism, multiculturalism, and political dominance by society that is post colonialism but with no Christian cultural legacy.
Are we talking about contextual theology here? It will be interesting to continue the conversation.
More thots....
John has shared his perspective of the Star Wars saga from his point of view. I have shared my perspective. Who is correct? Is it an either/or situation? Is it possible for both of us are correct. What would George Lucas do?
.
The Christianity in Star Wars
John McDowell published The Gospel According to Star Wars, Faith, Hope and the Force in March 2007. This promises to be an interesting read.
John writes,
Instead, it is important to hear Lucas’ efforts to tell the story of the good life and signs of its fragility, disruptability and corruptibility for what they are (although here one needs to be careful lest the communicative act of Star Wars’ production be limited to a single voice, that of the auteur).
What is revealing about Lucas’ own efforts is that he has claimed that Christianity was not up to the job, being distorted by an ultimate self-seeking – a being godly for the sake of self-gain. In this process of listening, critical listening I might add, the way in which this set of movies is both culturally produced (a product of its time and place) and culturally productive (generative of cultural imaginations) is revealing.
It is expressive of: the ways in which the sources for the enrichment and fulfilment of spiritual desires have shifted in post-Christian societies, the style of pluralist ethos (Lucas’ Force is largely a Western liberal creation), the manner of the reduction of all artefacts to entertainment value by many in Western cultures (the fact, for instance, that Star Wars has become associated purely with ‘popcorn entertainment’), popularly located forms of resistance to dominant cultural values (Lucas’ resistance to neo-conservative politics), the ways in which various modes of Christian thinking receive popular cultural texts, and so on.
But something that is frequently missed in the rush to associate Lucas’ mythological borrowings with various Eastern philosophies is the sets of values that remain broadly Christian in a cinematic text composed on Western soil. read more
I find it fascinating to note that John have linked the philosophy of Star Wars with Christianity, and commented "Lucas'Force is largely a Western liberal creation." I have not heard what George Lucas had said about his "Force", so I am speaking from an Asian perspective. The force to me, is the tao, which is everywhere and nowhere. The whole movie series is a continuous cycle of human sufferings due to their attachments, betrayal and redemption.
Yes, it could be Christian. But it could also be Buddhist, Taoism or even Zen. Is it a commentary of socio-political-economic situations or about an intergenerational human pilgrimage? Are we reading too much into it? Would John have a different perspective if he is writing from an Asian country where religious pluralism, multiculturalism, and political dominance by society that is post colonialism but with no Christian cultural legacy.
Are we talking about contextual theology here? It will be interesting to continue the conversation.
More thots....
John writes,
Instead, it is important to hear Lucas’ efforts to tell the story of the good life and signs of its fragility, disruptability and corruptibility for what they are (although here one needs to be careful lest the communicative act of Star Wars’ production be limited to a single voice, that of the auteur).
What is revealing about Lucas’ own efforts is that he has claimed that Christianity was not up to the job, being distorted by an ultimate self-seeking – a being godly for the sake of self-gain. In this process of listening, critical listening I might add, the way in which this set of movies is both culturally produced (a product of its time and place) and culturally productive (generative of cultural imaginations) is revealing.
It is expressive of: the ways in which the sources for the enrichment and fulfilment of spiritual desires have shifted in post-Christian societies, the style of pluralist ethos (Lucas’ Force is largely a Western liberal creation), the manner of the reduction of all artefacts to entertainment value by many in Western cultures (the fact, for instance, that Star Wars has become associated purely with ‘popcorn entertainment’), popularly located forms of resistance to dominant cultural values (Lucas’ resistance to neo-conservative politics), the ways in which various modes of Christian thinking receive popular cultural texts, and so on.
But something that is frequently missed in the rush to associate Lucas’ mythological borrowings with various Eastern philosophies is the sets of values that remain broadly Christian in a cinematic text composed on Western soil. read more
I find it fascinating to note that John have linked the philosophy of Star Wars with Christianity, and commented "Lucas'Force is largely a Western liberal creation." I have not heard what George Lucas had said about his "Force", so I am speaking from an Asian perspective. The force to me, is the tao, which is everywhere and nowhere. The whole movie series is a continuous cycle of human sufferings due to their attachments, betrayal and redemption.
Yes, it could be Christian. But it could also be Buddhist, Taoism or even Zen. Is it a commentary of socio-political-economic situations or about an intergenerational human pilgrimage? Are we reading too much into it? Would John have a different perspective if he is writing from an Asian country where religious pluralism, multiculturalism, and political dominance by society that is post colonialism but with no Christian cultural legacy.
Are we talking about contextual theology here? It will be interesting to continue the conversation.
More thots....
John has shared his perspective of the Star Wars saga from his point of view. I have shared my perspective. Who is correct? Is it an either/or situation? Is it possible for both of us are correct. What would George Lucas do?
.
Q&A on Centering Prayer and Lectio Divina
1. How different is the centering prayer from New Age meditation and how can we be sure that it is not a "slippery slope" to New Age meditation?
This is a valid and very important question. Many people are wary of centering prayer because of its superficial similarities with New Age meditation.
Yes, there are some similarity between centering prayer and New Age meditation. Both require
*sitting still and be quiet
*both begins by relaxation exercises like a breathing exercise
*both involving quieting and stilling our busy minds
*both try to still our restless mind by focusing on a word
These are spiritual tools that we use. New Age also have sacred books which they study like we study the Bible. They also pray like us but unlike us, pray to others. They also seek to extend mercy to the poor and needy, like us. Thus, just because the spiritual tools are the same, it does not mean that we cannot use them.
But here the similarities ends. The important thing we must be aware of is the context. We are Christians and centering prayer is our desire to be quiet, to center ourselves so that we can be aware of God's presence within us. God is transcendent and immanent. It is His immanence we seek here. It is to seek to be with God in a 'quiet or sacred' place. Such a place can be within us. It is here that we rest, be in His presence and be aware that we are His beloved. The word that we use to help us focus our mind is not a magic word. Its only function is to help us focus and still our wandering mind. That is why centering prayer is a prayer. We seek communion with God.
New Age meditation however is done in a different context. Its purpose is to empty the mind so that in the emptiness they can be one with the universe or attain another astral plane of existence. The word they use is a sacred word, one with power. Hence they often keep to the same word and it is a secret word. It is totally different from centering prayer where instead of emptying our minds, we seek to fill it with the presence of God.
Can centering prayer be a 'slippery slope' that leads us into New Age meditation? As I have mentioned the context is different. We seek to fill not to empty. And we have to believe that the Holy Spirit will protect our minds in its time of rest. So, personally, I do not think it represents a 'slippery slope' that is dangerous to those who practice it.
2. The students have been taught in their biblical interpretation classes that "context is king." (when interpreting a passage). How does this fit in with what is advocated in Lectio Divina, the concept of imagining we are one of the characters, just allowing one word to "jump out" at you, etc ?
In hermeneutic classes the students have been rightly taught about the essential tools for the right exegesis of the text. That is reading for information while lectio divina is reading for formation. Lectio divina is reading with the heart and being open to the Holy Spirit. We must realise that we are not pure intellect but also emotional beings. Hence our spiritual life must have a balance between the intellect and the emotions.
Textual criticism can led us only so far. Sometimes we can be so involved cognitively that we cannot hear what God is saying to us. Hence a session of lectio divina is very helpful for us as we are focusing on what God is doing in our lives. I agree that there is always the fear that this free flowing meaning from the text may lead us astray.
This is where our intellect and theological knowledge comes in. If what we receive or perceive is against the teaching of the Bible, common sense, and the counsel of our discerning brothers and sisters, then it cannot be from God. Hence lectio divina must be done in a community of faith setting where there is check and balance. Lectio divina is where the Scriptures speak into our lives.
.
Q&A on Centering Prayer and Lectio Divina
1. How different is the centering prayer from New Age meditation and how can we be sure that it is not a "slippery slope" to New Age meditation?
This is a valid and very important question. Many people are wary of centering prayer because of its superficial similarities with New Age meditation.
Yes, there are some similarity between centering prayer and New Age meditation. Both require
*sitting still and be quiet
*both begins by relaxation exercises like a breathing exercise
*both involving quieting and stilling our busy minds
*both try to still our restless mind by focusing on a word
These are spiritual tools that we use. New Age also have sacred books which they study like we study the Bible. They also pray like us but unlike us, pray to others. They also seek to extend mercy to the poor and needy, like us. Thus, just because the spiritual tools are the same, it does not mean that we cannot use them.
But here the similarities ends. The important thing we must be aware of is the context. We are Christians and centering prayer is our desire to be quiet, to center ourselves so that we can be aware of God's presence within us. God is transcendent and immanent. It is His immanence we seek here. It is to seek to be with God in a 'quiet or sacred' place. Such a place can be within us. It is here that we rest, be in His presence and be aware that we are His beloved. The word that we use to help us focus our mind is not a magic word. Its only function is to help us focus and still our wandering mind. That is why centering prayer is a prayer. We seek communion with God.
New Age meditation however is done in a different context. Its purpose is to empty the mind so that in the emptiness they can be one with the universe or attain another astral plane of existence. The word they use is a sacred word, one with power. Hence they often keep to the same word and it is a secret word. It is totally different from centering prayer where instead of emptying our minds, we seek to fill it with the presence of God.
Can centering prayer be a 'slippery slope' that leads us into New Age meditation? As I have mentioned the context is different. We seek to fill not to empty. And we have to believe that the Holy Spirit will protect our minds in its time of rest. So, personally, I do not think it represents a 'slippery slope' that is dangerous to those who practice it.
2. The students have been taught in their biblical interpretation classes that "context is king." (when interpreting a passage). How does this fit in with what is advocated in Lectio Divina, the concept of imagining we are one of the characters, just allowing one word to "jump out" at you, etc ?
In hermeneutic classes the students have been rightly taught about the essential tools for the right exegesis of the text. That is reading for information while lectio divina is reading for formation. Lectio divina is reading with the heart and being open to the Holy Spirit. We must realise that we are not pure intellect but also emotional beings. Hence our spiritual life must have a balance between the intellect and the emotions.
Textual criticism can led us only so far. Sometimes we can be so involved cognitively that we cannot hear what God is saying to us. Hence a session of lectio divina is very helpful for us as we are focusing on what God is doing in our lives. I agree that there is always the fear that this free flowing meaning from the text may lead us astray.
This is where our intellect and theological knowledge comes in. If what we receive or perceive is against the teaching of the Bible, common sense, and the counsel of our discerning brothers and sisters, then it cannot be from God. Hence lectio divina must be done in a community of faith setting where there is check and balance. Lectio divina is where the Scriptures speak into our lives.
.
Pioneer Missionary Engages Culture
In an age of extraordinary people, Matteo Ricci was one of the most remarkable. Even today, if you ask a Chinese person to name a famous European from the past, they will as likely as not name Ricci. He was a 16th-century Italian Jesuit scholar who arrived in Macao—a Portuguese possession on the border of China—in 1582. He hoped to work as a missionary in China.
The mission was run by another Jesuit, Ricci's former teacher Alessandro Valignano, who believed that Christian mission shouldn't be about striding up to the "natives," telling them their religion was wrong, and instructing them in a new one.
He believed that missionaries should be sensitive to local culture and treat the local people with respect, on the basis that they, too, had valuable things to say.
So, when Ricci finally gained permission to enter China in 1583 (the Chinese authorities generally didn't allow Europeans to enter at this time), he went dressed as a Buddhist monk, speaking Chinese and presenting himself as a humble seeker after wisdom. He wasn't very successful at first (the people of the area he arrived in, near Canton, didn't speak the Chinese dialect he had learned in Macao, and they didn't much like Buddhist monks, either), but he persevered and won the trust of the people.
In particular, Ricci made many contacts at the imperial court, where people were greatly impressed by his humble approach and his interest in Chinese learning. In the court, Ricci dressed and presented himself as a Confucian scholar. The emperor himself liked the gifts that Ricci brought him (especially a clock and a harpsichord), and Ricci sought to find new ways to express the Christian faith that made sense to the Chinese. He not only translated various Christian texts into Chinese, but in 1603 also wrote a famous book (in Chinese) called The True Doctrine of the Lord of Heaven, which presented Christianity in the form of a philosophical discussion in the Neo-Confucian tradition. The book was very well received.
Ricci was the first great Jesuit missionary to China. Many more followed him and became closely involved in all kinds of scientific and cultural pursuits.
Unfortunately later missionaries who followed were not so sensitive to culture.
Pioneer Missionary Engages Culture
In an age of extraordinary people, Matteo Ricci was one of the most remarkable. Even today, if you ask a Chinese person to name a famous European from the past, they will as likely as not name Ricci. He was a 16th-century Italian Jesuit scholar who arrived in Macao—a Portuguese possession on the border of China—in 1582. He hoped to work as a missionary in China.The mission was run by another Jesuit, Ricci's former teacher Alessandro Valignano, who believed that Christian mission shouldn't be about striding up to the "natives," telling them their religion was wrong, and instructing them in a new one.
He believed that missionaries should be sensitive to local culture and treat the local people with respect, on the basis that they, too, had valuable things to say.
So, when Ricci finally gained permission to enter China in 1583 (the Chinese authorities generally didn't allow Europeans to enter at this time), he went dressed as a Buddhist monk, speaking Chinese and presenting himself as a humble seeker after wisdom. He wasn't very successful at first (the people of the area he arrived in, near Canton, didn't speak the Chinese dialect he had learned in Macao, and they didn't much like Buddhist monks, either), but he persevered and won the trust of the people.
In particular, Ricci made many contacts at the imperial court, where people were greatly impressed by his humble approach and his interest in Chinese learning. In the court, Ricci dressed and presented himself as a Confucian scholar. The emperor himself liked the gifts that Ricci brought him (especially a clock and a harpsichord), and Ricci sought to find new ways to express the Christian faith that made sense to the Chinese. He not only translated various Christian texts into Chinese, but in 1603 also wrote a famous book (in Chinese) called The True Doctrine of the Lord of Heaven, which presented Christianity in the form of a philosophical discussion in the Neo-Confucian tradition. The book was very well received.
Ricci was the first great Jesuit missionary to China. Many more followed him and became closely involved in all kinds of scientific and cultural pursuits.
Unfortunately later missionaries who followed were not so sensitive to culture.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Is Computer Games Bad for Your Kids?
That is a question many parents ask.
Is computer or video games bad for our kids?
Is it bad for their learning?
Will it make them violent and anti social?
Answering the last question first, children becoming violent after spending too much time playing violent computer/video games is a recognised phenomenon. However, there are other contributing factors such as absent or abusive fathers, dysfunctional families, personality disorders, socio-economic factors, and gangsterism. So, there is not a clear yes or no answer.
Is it good for them? Depends. It is now recognised that children who played computer/video games makes better surgeons because of better hand-eye coordination. I know of some trainee surgeons are beginning to play computer/video games to improve their hand-eye coordination. My comment to them is , good try, but you're too old, too late.
Don Norman gave an interesting talk on The Future of Education: Lessons Learned from Video Games and Museum Exhibits at a
COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL POLICY: June 2001
he makes an interesting observation.
Children, we are told, have short attention spans, caused, of course, by the prevalence of games and TV and commercials in our society.
Nonsense.
Watch people at video games. You can't tear them away. More importantly, they truly are exercising their minds. They problem-solve. They take notes, read books of hints and strategy. They save the game state, try out a new course of action, and if it doesn't work, return to the saved game state. And they form social communities, sharing hints, tips, and methods. Many of you will understand, for you do it too.
Times have changed. Game play has become more complex. It can be a good learning experience. Professional organisations are using stimulation games to train their employees. Game theory are used in fields as diverse as economics and the stockmarket. However as parents, we still need to vet through the games we allow our children to play. This means we have to know about computer/video games. Command and Conquer 3, anyone?
Is computer or video games bad for our kids?
Is it bad for their learning?
Will it make them violent and anti social?
Answering the last question first, children becoming violent after spending too much time playing violent computer/video games is a recognised phenomenon. However, there are other contributing factors such as absent or abusive fathers, dysfunctional families, personality disorders, socio-economic factors, and gangsterism. So, there is not a clear yes or no answer.
Is it good for them? Depends. It is now recognised that children who played computer/video games makes better surgeons because of better hand-eye coordination. I know of some trainee surgeons are beginning to play computer/video games to improve their hand-eye coordination. My comment to them is , good try, but you're too old, too late.
Don Norman gave an interesting talk on The Future of Education: Lessons Learned from Video Games and Museum Exhibits at a
COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL POLICY: June 2001
he makes an interesting observation.
Children, we are told, have short attention spans, caused, of course, by the prevalence of games and TV and commercials in our society.
Nonsense.
Watch people at video games. You can't tear them away. More importantly, they truly are exercising their minds. They problem-solve. They take notes, read books of hints and strategy. They save the game state, try out a new course of action, and if it doesn't work, return to the saved game state. And they form social communities, sharing hints, tips, and methods. Many of you will understand, for you do it too.
Times have changed. Game play has become more complex. It can be a good learning experience. Professional organisations are using stimulation games to train their employees. Game theory are used in fields as diverse as economics and the stockmarket. However as parents, we still need to vet through the games we allow our children to play. This means we have to know about computer/video games. Command and Conquer 3, anyone?
.
Is Computer Games Bad for Your Kids?
That is a question many parents ask.
Is computer or video games bad for our kids?
Is it bad for their learning?
Will it make them violent and anti social?
Answering the last question first, children becoming violent after spending too much time playing violent computer/video games is a recognised phenomenon. However, there are other contributing factors such as absent or abusive fathers, dysfunctional families, personality disorders, socio-economic factors, and gangsterism. So, there is not a clear yes or no answer.
Is it good for them? Depends. It is now recognised that children who played computer/video games makes better surgeons because of better hand-eye coordination. I know of some trainee surgeons are beginning to play computer/video games to improve their hand-eye coordination. My comment to them is , good try, but you're too old, too late.
Don Norman gave an interesting talk on The Future of Education: Lessons Learned from Video Games and Museum Exhibits at a
COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL POLICY: June 2001
he makes an interesting observation.
Children, we are told, have short attention spans, caused, of course, by the prevalence of games and TV and commercials in our society.
Nonsense.
Watch people at video games. You can't tear them away. More importantly, they truly are exercising their minds. They problem-solve. They take notes, read books of hints and strategy. They save the game state, try out a new course of action, and if it doesn't work, return to the saved game state. And they form social communities, sharing hints, tips, and methods. Many of you will understand, for you do it too.
Times have changed. Game play has become more complex. It can be a good learning experience. Professional organisations are using stimulation games to train their employees. Game theory are used in fields as diverse as economics and the stockmarket. However as parents, we still need to vet through the games we allow our children to play. This means we have to know about computer/video games. Command and Conquer 3, anyone?
Is computer or video games bad for our kids?
Is it bad for their learning?
Will it make them violent and anti social?
Answering the last question first, children becoming violent after spending too much time playing violent computer/video games is a recognised phenomenon. However, there are other contributing factors such as absent or abusive fathers, dysfunctional families, personality disorders, socio-economic factors, and gangsterism. So, there is not a clear yes or no answer.
Is it good for them? Depends. It is now recognised that children who played computer/video games makes better surgeons because of better hand-eye coordination. I know of some trainee surgeons are beginning to play computer/video games to improve their hand-eye coordination. My comment to them is , good try, but you're too old, too late.
Don Norman gave an interesting talk on The Future of Education: Lessons Learned from Video Games and Museum Exhibits at a
COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL POLICY: June 2001
he makes an interesting observation.
Children, we are told, have short attention spans, caused, of course, by the prevalence of games and TV and commercials in our society.
Nonsense.
Watch people at video games. You can't tear them away. More importantly, they truly are exercising their minds. They problem-solve. They take notes, read books of hints and strategy. They save the game state, try out a new course of action, and if it doesn't work, return to the saved game state. And they form social communities, sharing hints, tips, and methods. Many of you will understand, for you do it too.
Times have changed. Game play has become more complex. It can be a good learning experience. Professional organisations are using stimulation games to train their employees. Game theory are used in fields as diverse as economics and the stockmarket. However as parents, we still need to vet through the games we allow our children to play. This means we have to know about computer/video games. Command and Conquer 3, anyone?
.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
My idea of a good computer game is a real time strategy game like Command & Conquer. I have enjoyed playing all the games in the series with their expansion packs. The storyline is captivating and I find the graphics improving with each new game. However the AI remains not too smart which I am happy with. Otherwise I will lose too often. Thank God, for being able to save the gameplay. The last few games is about the war between the Brotherhood of Nod and the Global Defense Initiative.Just released is Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars which is a real-time strategy game developed by Electronic Arts Los Angeles for the Windows and Xbox 360 platforms, and is a sequel to the 1999 RTS title Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun and its expansion pack Firestorm by Westwood Studios. Canonically it takes place at the advent of and during the "Third Tiberium War", after the Brotherhood of Nod launches an unexpected and worldwide offensive against the Global Defense Initiative, abruptly ending a period of seventeen years of silence and crippling GDI forces everywhere. With the odds tipped in Nod's favor this time, GDI field commanders rally their troops and begin to combat the Brotherhood's second re-emergence, trying to restore lost hope. The game also features the introduction of a new third faction (Scrin) to the Tiberian series of the Command & Conquer games, and is the second C&C title in which players are able to upgrade their forces.
It sounds promising. Now I have to find time to play the game. I find these games addictive. Once started, I find it hard to stop. In the past, I would play until 5.30am and crept to bed before the wife wake up! So much for self discipline.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
My idea of a good computer game is a real time strategy game like Command & Conquer. I have enjoyed playing all the games in the series with their expansion packs. The storyline is captivating and I find the graphics improving with each new game. However the AI remains not too smart which I am happy with. Otherwise I will lose too often. Thank God, for being able to save the gameplay. The last few games is about the war between the Brotherhood of Nod and the Global Defense Initiative.Just released is Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars which is a real-time strategy game developed by Electronic Arts Los Angeles for the Windows and Xbox 360 platforms, and is a sequel to the 1999 RTS title Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun and its expansion pack Firestorm by Westwood Studios. Canonically it takes place at the advent of and during the "Third Tiberium War", after the Brotherhood of Nod launches an unexpected and worldwide offensive against the Global Defense Initiative, abruptly ending a period of seventeen years of silence and crippling GDI forces everywhere. With the odds tipped in Nod's favor this time, GDI field commanders rally their troops and begin to combat the Brotherhood's second re-emergence, trying to restore lost hope. The game also features the introduction of a new third faction (Scrin) to the Tiberian series of the Command & Conquer games, and is the second C&C title in which players are able to upgrade their forces.
It sounds promising. Now I have to find time to play the game. I find these games addictive. Once started, I find it hard to stop. In the past, I would play until 5.30am and crept to bed before the wife wake up! So much for self discipline.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Book Village launched in Malacca
A new book village was launched in Malacca at the Botanical Gardens In Air Keroh as reported by Star Online. It is hoped that this one will be better than the one in Langkawi which closed last year.
The idea of a book village is very appealing to a bibliophile like me. The idea of wandering around from bookstores to bookstores is my idea of paradise. Reading and seeing pictures of book villages in other part of the world, especially in Hay-on-Wye was very enticing. Another example is the Hobart Book Village.
Many years ago, I went to the Langkawi Book Village or Buku Kampung Langkawi with high expectations. Buku Kampung Langkawi was billed as the first book village in South East Asia! It was launched with much fanfare in 1987. Finding the book village and getting there was not easy, as it was situated so
mewhere in the middle of Langkawi.
The village itself was made up of many small stand-alone buildings. It was hot walking in the sun from one building to another. There was no shade. About half the stalls were empty. Only one or two is air conditioned. That itself was not the disappointment. The disappointment were the books. There were no selections. What was on sale were revision guides for SPM and STPM, school textbooks, a few popular novels and magazines. The local newsagent in any town will have more stock. So that's the Malaysian book village I encountered. In the end, I only bought a mug with the words, "Langkawi Book Village" printed on the side as a souvenir! So much for the vision of going home with boxes of books.
I hope the Malacca one will do better. A question I do want to ask is whether a book village will promote a reading public? Or does a reading public promotes a book village? Have we put the cart before the horse again?
The idea of a book village is very appealing to a bibliophile like me. The idea of wandering around from bookstores to bookstores is my idea of paradise. Reading and seeing pictures of book villages in other part of the world, especially in Hay-on-Wye was very enticing. Another example is the Hobart Book Village.
Many years ago, I went to the Langkawi Book Village or Buku Kampung Langkawi with high expectations. Buku Kampung Langkawi was billed as the first book village in South East Asia! It was launched with much fanfare in 1987. Finding the book village and getting there was not easy, as it was situated so
mewhere in the middle of Langkawi.The village itself was made up of many small stand-alone buildings. It was hot walking in the sun from one building to another. There was no shade. About half the stalls were empty. Only one or two is air conditioned. That itself was not the disappointment. The disappointment were the books. There were no selections. What was on sale were revision guides for SPM and STPM, school textbooks, a few popular novels and magazines. The local newsagent in any town will have more stock. So that's the Malaysian book village I encountered. In the end, I only bought a mug with the words, "Langkawi Book Village" printed on the side as a souvenir! So much for the vision of going home with boxes of books.
I hope the Malacca one will do better. A question I do want to ask is whether a book village will promote a reading public? Or does a reading public promotes a book village? Have we put the cart before the horse again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)