« August 2004 | Main | October 2004 »
I wondered how long it would take for a spider to find my blog. I have heard about the problem of comment-spamming on blogs, but seeing is believing.
I got back from Open Door and Praise and Worship practices to discover that this blog was spammed with comments. I'm glad I have comment moderation turned on.
There were four IPs in different subnets that posted twenty comments over a two minute window. That's probably as fast as they could do it over my dialup. ;)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An implantable contact lens that corrects vision in nearsighted patients is safe and does not have some of the side effects of laser surgery, a company that manufactures the devices said on Wednesday.
STAAR Surgical Co. said its lens corrected the vision of 95 percent of patients to 20/40 or better, and 60 percent had 20/20 vision.
Writing in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's clinical journal Ophthalmology, the researchers said no patients reported increased problems such as glare halos, double vision, night vision or difficulty driving at night -- all potential side-effects of Lasik surgery.
They said 97 percent of the patients said they would choose to have the lens implanted again.
The STAAR lens and a rival product by Advanced Medical Optics are both awaiting U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.
Some studies presented to the FDA show implantable lenses can cause serious side effects, including corneal damage, cataracts and retinal detachment.
For this study, the STAAR myopic lens was implanted in 526 eyes of nearly 294 patients whose myopia, or nearsightedness, ranged from a moderate minus 3.0 diopters to severe myopia of minus 20.0 diopters.
"These data suggest that the (implantable contact lens) should be given serious consideration for use in eyes with minus 7 diopters of myopia or more," the researchers wrote.
In a commentary on the study, Dr. Peter Kastl of Tulane University in New Orleans, a spokesman for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, said: "While LASIK is the best surgical option for many patients, there can be more complications for patients with a higher range of myopia. Implantable contact lenses may be a good option for those patients."
About 30 percent of Americans have myopia, also known as nearsightedness or shortsightedness.
I was pondering how one goes about praying. It's a very unusual form of communication.
When speaking to someone directly, I can observe their body language to sense if they are listening, interested in the topic, showing understanding to prompt me to continue, or ready to respond to some point that I just made.
When I talk on the phone or two-way radio, I can't take advantage of body language, but I can use vocal cues that might be verbal or simple sounds (mmmm-hmmm). This keeps the conversation flowing.
But these are typically forms of two-way communication. Both people take turns sharing their thoughts and ideas. What about other forms of communication that might be more like prayer, where the communication is one-way and perhaps omnidirectional?
Broadcast types of communication such as newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and some types of internet information all have many listeners and one speaker (at least conceptually). How does this form of communication function? For print media, there are subscriptions or other evidence that the information is being delivered. For radio and television, some might be by subscription, but others utilize Nielsen ratings to determine if the information is delivered. Even without ratings, a transmitting station can go out and test to see if their signal is being broadcast. It doesn't guarantee viewership, but at least confirms the message has been sent. Are similar tools available for prayer to verify that the message has been sent, or to know if the message has been received?
In all forms of terrestrial communication mentioned so far, there are some obvious means by which one can provide feedback. It's easy enough when speaking with someone to use body language or verbal cues. For print media, one can contact the publisher to give comments. Similar means are available for television and radio.
The means of feedback are either explicitly defined, or at least implicitly understood. We can use a phone or mail to contact printed and aired media, which are explicitly understood tools. We have been trained how to use them. When body language is used for feedback, we have implicitly learned the appropriate body language from our culture. It's understood (usually) what we mean. We don't have to be trained to use body language.
Feedback is the primary means to know that the message has been received. Whether it's implicit or explicit, the feedback is usually obvious to the one receiving it. That is its purpose. How do we hear God? How do we get feedback from prayer; is it obvious?
So what is prayer most like? It could be one-on-one like a phone call, but I'd need to be told how to dial the God's number in my mind. (No, I won't go into the possible jokes of wrong numbers, busy signals, etc.) It could be a directional broadcast, where one must aim the antenna and tune into the correct God-frequency. It could be an omnidirectional spread-spectrum broadcast, but that sounds desperate and hopeless, like SETI sending a signal to aliens that are only exist in theory.
Is prayer an always-open channel, or must we first turn on and tune the transmitter? If it's always on, then aren't we praying 24/7? If not, how do I turn on and tune in; what exactly must I do in my brain to activate communication? More to the point, how do I know if I'm successful in tuning in to God's frequency? Most two-way communication devices negotiate a connection before transmitting data, but I don't see that applying to prayer. But even for one-way communication like TV, there are methods to make sure the station is transmitting strongly and clearly on their assigned frequency. It doesn't seem possible to do this with prayer.
Perhaps prayer is desperate and hopeless, but christianity (like most religions) is a belief system that doesn't allow it's followers to question its tenets.
So now I've had my say. As usual I provided more questions than answers.
Here's what others have said on prayer and hearing God:
Links:
Prayer pointers
Speaking with God
Yoga perspective on seeking God
A prayer narrative followed by a multitude of categorized scripture
Hearing God
How to hear God in four easy steps
At a recent WSF meeting, we were encouraged us to examine ourselves by answering some open-ended sentences. At first I was very skeptical, but ultimately found the exercise to be interesting and perhaps even a little insightful.
You've probably seen the various "question list" emails where you answer a variety of questions about yourself and email it off to your friends, asking them to do the same. Usually those questions involve favorite colors/books/movies/foods, musical preference, what's in your closet/car-trunk/etc. The questions tend to be very superficial and barely even glimpse at who the person truly is. This list of questions has the potential of going a lot deeper, as it probes your feelings and emotions.
I challenge you to:
No cheating! Don't discuss the questions/phrases with others before answering them, and don't look at others' answers first (including mine!).
I trust...
I fear...
I hope...
I get turned off by...
I wish...
I believe...
I am hurt by...
I am best at...
I am angry when...
I depend on...
I love...
I like...
I dislike...
I hate...
I respect...
I think...
I am disappointed by...
I dream about...
Here are my responses:
I trust... that things will eventually work out.
I fear... the unknown.
I hope... I don't have to tell these things to the group.
I get turned off by... places crowded with strangers.
I wish... God would tell me everything I want to know about the universe.
I believe... there is a lot remaining to learn.
I am hurt by... people talking about me behind my back.
I am best at... taking group discussions on tangents.
I am angry when... I don't do what needs to be done.
I depend on... myself.
I love... successfully completing tasks that other evaluate or depend on my contribution.
I like... ice cream.
I dislike... the over-use of the word 'hate'.
I hate... nothing?
I respect... others' opinions.
I think... this list is far too long.
I am disappointed by... others who don't keep commitments.
I dream about... ideal realities that are probably impractical if not impossible.
The group discussed some of the responses. For example, which was the easiest question for you to answer? The most difficult?
One person shared that she thought the most difficult item was the "I am best at..." question. The difficulty was a concern about pride in saying that you're the best at doing anything. Can we say we're the best at something without being prideful?
Another concern had to do with the "I hate..." question. I brought up the idea that most people don't fathom the meaning of the word hate, made evident in my response to the "I dislike..." question. Tyson (administering the 'test') shared that in previous iterations of the test, many people state that the "I hate..." question is the easiest to answer. What does that say about those people specifically? Can that be extended to society as a whole?
