tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10263824697478748752023-11-15T08:46:36.518-08:00MeditationsFinney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-27617338860888731572013-04-04T15:14:00.003-07:002013-04-04T15:16:39.343-07:00Good Friday <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-themecolor: text1;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-themecolor: text1;">We need to stop presenting a watered down gospel and a marketable Christ. The problem with contemporary Christianity is we
have sometimes preached the graciousness of Christ without preaching the
gravity of sin. We need to preach the totality of the gospel embracing the love
of God along with the justice of God, the grace of God along with the holiness
of God and the mercy of God along with the wrath of God, for on the cross all
the attributes of God converge and coalesce to make forgiveness possible and
available.</span>Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-61187629522088537802011-12-11T22:13:00.000-08:002011-12-11T22:13:36.375-08:00ChristmasChristmas is not an event that we commemorate but a person whom we celebrate.Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-75162054582105179192011-11-16T12:06:00.000-08:002012-01-17T16:17:07.462-08:00What is Love?What is love?<br />
The expanse of space<br />
Where beauty resides<br />
Or the space unseen<br />
Where mystery abides<br />
<br />
What is love?<br />
Images that chime<br />
In mirrors of time<br />
Or hidden in verse<br />
A story or rhyme<br />
<br />
What is love?<br />
Glorious mountains<br />
Or shimmering seas<br />
A swelling circle<br />
O'er nature's decrees<br />
<br />
What is love?<br />
The sages of old<br />
How prudently told<br />
Love's undying core<br />
Is charmingly more<br />
<br />
Yes, love is much more<br />
<br />
Finney Premkumar (2011)Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-12677382137976658972011-08-09T11:23:00.000-07:002011-08-09T11:25:49.684-07:00ForgivenessThe Bible declares that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." Forgiveness is not an initiative that is funded by the wrong-doers recognition of his or her trangressions against us. Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-87892652893497302212011-02-08T15:05:00.000-08:002011-02-08T15:05:01.772-08:00WorshipWorship is not just an expression of all that we feel, it's also a submission of all that we are.Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-20624667892632835592010-10-28T13:34:00.001-07:002010-11-10T16:45:52.739-08:00There’s a LandThere’s a land <br />
Serene and blue<br />
With golden meadows <br />
In seamless hue<br />
<br />
Where streams line <br />
The mountain glow<br />
While vapors convene<br />
And slump below <br />
<br />
Where dawn breaks <br />
O’er groovy falls<br />
In timeless grandeur<br />
Like ivory halls<br />
<br />
Where hearts feel<br />
A faint caress<br />
Burgeoning its woos<br />
To repossess<br />
<br />
There’s a land<br />
Mangled yet free<br />
Embracing distress<br />
Until we see<br />
<br />
Finney Premkumar (2010)Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-72642571208943844792010-05-26T14:16:00.000-07:002012-01-17T16:15:45.879-08:00Can computers really “think”?<div style="text-align: left;">Apparently, computers can not only think but fool a person into thinking that they are human as well. The Loebner Prize for artificial intelligence ( AI ) is awarded every year to research uncovering this vivacious and alluring field. The contestants are awarded based on research undertaken to develop the most human-like computer. As such, the Loebner Prize is essentially a formal instantiation of a test named after Alan Turing, the great British mathematician. Turing tackled the problem of artificial intelligence by proposing an experiment famously known as the Turing test. The test is principally an attempt to elucidate possible standards or what may be called demarcational necessities for a machine to be categorized as "intelligent". According to the Turing test, a computer could be said to "think" if it could fool an interrogator into thinking that the conversation was with a human. The prospect of these “thinking machines” seem to defy thought and imagination to the extent that Professor Marvin Minsky (MIT) seems quite convinced that the next generation of computers will become so intelligent that “we’ll be lucky if they are willing to keep us around the house as household pets.” If that doesn't make you cringe, buy a leash, tie it around your neck and practice fetching the mail from the mailbox.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">At one extreme, there are theoreticians who profess that thinking is essentially information processing reducible to computations based on symbol manipulation, in line with Turing’s basic outlook. A more moderate position would allow that thinking is infinitely complex and therefore incapacitates the possibility of complete analysis; however, this position would maintain the basic conviction that minds and computers are essentially of the same kind since the former is nothing more than an optimization of the latter. The discontinuity or chasm between the mind and the computer was developed, they would argue, to maintain the dignity and value of a human being; in reality, no such distance exists beyond what is erroneously sustained by our misguided perceptions. However, John Searle, a professor of philosophy at UC Berkeley has argued forcefully in his book, <em>Minds, Brains and Science</em>, that the chasm is unbridgeable in principle. His famous illustration often referred to as “the Chinese room argument” provides quite a convincing case against equating the mind and the computer. His carefully thought out scenario shows that observationally equivalent phenomenon might actually have contrary causal explanations. I happen to agree with Searle. Our unwarranted enthusiasm with technological innovations engenders certain uncritical dispositions that overlook the discontinuity that is implicit when comparing minds to computers; the discontinuity has nothing to with the progress we’ve achieved. It really does not matter how digital we become, how rapidly complex calculations are done or even if they can be given a purely algorithmic delineation. It is not a matter of progressive possibility but one of principled impossibility. All that computers or digital machines have ever achieved or will ever achieve can be exclusively placed within a syntactic category. The mind, though syntactic and computational in a certain sense, will always transcend any reductionistic tendencies due to its intrinsic semantic and intentional nature. As such, the greatest creations of our genius (computers/digital machines), can never duplicate but at best simulate the mind. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">So……can a computer really think? Well, that depends. If consciousness can be reduced to syntax and a person to nothing more than a machine, then I guess we could possibly conclude that computers do in fact think. Alas, if everything is computational and essentially algorithmic, will it really matter if they do?<br />
<br />
Finney Premkumar<br />
(Published in The Clause, Copyright 2011)</div>Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-86951609294233838802010-02-02T00:21:00.000-08:002011-10-19T10:46:45.974-07:00Reflections on TechnologyThe writer of an article I read recently cautioned that the “wise use of technology may well be to refuse to use its full potential”. I happen to agree with him. There is a peculiar delight that seems to reside in reducing everything to the digital or the virtual. What initially began as innocent conveniences have now become indispensable necessities. We can no longer do without cell phones, laptops and ipods (the list is unending). We want everything instantly manufactured and customized to our liking, and whatever challenges our proclivities is seen as a positive impediment to progress. It is true that the Ancients were concerned about interpreting the world, but they did so in order to understand the boundaries of reality. We are attempting to recreate reality by relocating the boundaries and testing angles that were once non-existent. We may do well to remember Chesterton’s cautionary remark, “There are many, many angles at which one can fall but only one angle at which one can stand straight.” <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, our prodigal disposition seems bent on extracting “blood, sweat and tears” in order to usher in a technological utopia. We have reconstructed the tower of Babel and commenced our prideful celebration unaware of the cracks that are beginning to form. We may very well have added where we should have subtracted and multiplied where we should have divided. The broad margins of our conscious endeavor will soon be revealed and we may find our feet firmly planted in mid-air. Socrates believed that an unexamined life was not worth living because life as a whole must make sense before its constitutive elements do. We have redefined life, reworked its worth and reduced its value. Having lost our point of reference, we continue to injure ourselves without the ability to navigate beyond the walls of our own reckoning. As we draw our dying breath from under the debris of our futile undertakings we may finally make the supreme discovery of our lives, the fact that we never learnt how to live.<br />
<br />
Lest I be misunderstood, let me pause to dispel any notion that I am against technology. I am well aware of the good that it is capable of engendering. My family and I have been the recipients of its most generous offerings. My unease stems from the fact that most people don’t seem to perceive the built in limitations and the detrimental effects of being too techno-prone. From the pressure and need to access information with a sense of immediacy that is unparalleled in history to the recognizable and inevitable technological intrusions into areas uniquely human, one can only imagine the ramifications awaiting concrete expression in the near future. My perpetual fear is that the pace of the technological march will be transferred into human affairs unraveling the novel and sustaining rudiments of life. The world of computers, fax machines, texting and twitter keep us on edge in our endeavor to keep up with the demands of a hurried life-style by displacing cherished traditional norms. Our aptitude for aggressive data manipulation and instant exchange has reached its tentacles into what we may call “day to day living” through calculated enticements of profit and inevitable growth. We relentlessly run after what is faster and therefore “better” by neglecting what the wisdom of preceding generations held sacred: the virtue of process. There is something invaluable and significant about “the time it takes” or the duration of certain things in life. There are several lessons that can only be learnt within the crucible of an extended experience. We, on the other hand, seem to be living at such a rapid pace that one is left wondering if anyone has ever paused or taken a moment to consider our malady. Our misplaced compulsions have reconstructed our priorities and inexorably affected our focus and emphasis. For instance, due to the stress on quantitative realities we have lost sight of the irreducible qualitative elements that constitute life and living. What is purely quantitative (data, information etc.) can be subjected to rigorous processes and multiplied a million times over, and we rightly salute the geniuses who have in one way or another made the process time-efficient and cost- effective. However, the human dimension is distinctively personal, relational and internal, necessitating a counter-factual and transcendent paradigm. Furthermore, it is this unique human dimension that essentially makes sense of data/information; without a human being (qualitative), information (quantitative) is utterly and hopelessly meaningless. As such, the symbolic notations, syntactic representations and propositional content comprising what we call “data flow”, presuppose the presence, priority and personality of the person. From the complex algorithms in software programming to the stylistic essays of the finest journalist and the most novel and exquisite mathematical dissertations one can produce, the “who” in communication is prior to and infuses meaning into the “what’ that is communicated. Our technical proficiency is increasingly doing away with the former while exclusively focusing on the latter thereby reducing us to self-sufficient centers of information processing and exchange, making us nothing more than a dispensable part of an overall technological architecture. Is it any wonder then that we are gradually beginning to reflect the image of the machines we ourselves have created. <br />
<br />
Many more implications can be worked out, but time and space prohibit me from going any further. We truly need to ask ourselves some honest and vital questions. Do we seriously take time to think these things through? Do we have the time to think, not only about what we can do with technology, but more importantly, about what technology is doing to us? In the midst of a vastly complex and persistently engaging context, where does one find the time to be alone and reflective? It just seems almost impossible to be still, to focus and thereby draw to the fore things that really matter in our lives. If we are to recover our sense of identity, worth and value and if we are to capitalize on the qualitative aspects of humanity, things that cannot be quantified or externalized by technocrats, we must alter our course and take what may be a road less taken. We need to willfully resist the temptation of constant occupation. We must engage ourselves in constant disengagement to call into question the tide of popular opinion. It is in our solitary moments of silence, the ever evasive space between reasons within which we will rediscover our sense of purpose, meaning and destiny. The space of silence creates space for everything else. Our regrettable plight is that we lack even the basic tenacity needed to regain our losses. We are constantly bombarded with a cacophony of voices demanding our attention and find ourselves incapable of directing our loyalties. We need to relearn the art of “being still”, to shut out the noises that seek our attention so that our conscience may be quickened and our minds nurtured. We need a radical reeducation to sweep the landscape, to repaint the fading essentials of our being and re-institute our lost doctrines. It can only happen when we purposefully practice the art of being alone in silence. Many people mistake being alone with being lonely. The latter is a state that obtains when you are by yourself, the former can be sustained even in the presence of others. There is a great need, especially for believers to put this into practice. To be more than just a stream of open-ended consciousness but to withdraw, to be alone and reflect constantly about what it means to be a Christian in the current context of technological innovations.Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-37128139795376803602010-01-20T17:35:00.000-08:002010-01-20T23:48:38.403-08:00ProblemsI learnt today that there are certain problems that must be managed and others that can be solved. My problem is that I often try to solve the ones that can only be managed and work on managing the ones that can actually be solved.Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-38822381610483314882010-01-06T00:15:00.000-08:002010-06-15T16:31:24.132-07:00Reasons UnknownReason not with reason alone<br />
Our heart too has reasons unknown<br />
The Oracle of Delphi may soon reveal<br />
That cultured homily and human appeal<br />
Are nothing more than Pythia's zeal<br />
<br />
The mind surpasses too soon<br />
As the sun eclipses the moon<br />
Frail appellation seeks anew<br />
In pride its wanton pledge renew<br />
Only to wallow in disgrace<br />
The deep seas and infinite space<br />
Infantile, inept to appraise<br />
<br />
The mask of reason seems so bright<br />
Alive with pretentious delight<br />
To exhaust the whole in single vein<br />
The throne of reason proudly reign<br />
Amuse and lure to isolate<br />
All of man utterly negate<br />
The remedy not in mind but heart<br />
Where truth and reason come apart<br />
The prodigal nature does return<br />
When pride and profit finally burn<br />
Man and religion in reason alone<br />
Satisfy neither mind nor soul<br />
For my heart still has reasons unknown<br />
<br />
-Finney Premkumar (2009)Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-3548961184406283082009-12-26T07:42:00.000-08:002010-06-02T17:02:52.125-07:00Christmas Message IIHow absolutely incredible it is to think that the creator of the universe should make his entry on such humble terms. While the world waited for the pomp and splendor of the announcement of a King, in the darkest night and the gentle whisper of the cold wind, one of the greatest events in human history transpired as God did what he does best. He took a simple stable, on an obscure side of Bethlehem and transformed it into the ornate chambers of a King.<br />
<br />
Jesus was not born in the self-sufficient palaces of King Herod, where pride, privilige, prestige and position were the order of the day. Neither was he born in the inn of a pre-occupied inn-keeper concerned with entertaining his guests who were there to stay on a temporary basis that he lost the opportunity to host the arrival of one, whose kingdom is from everlasting to everlasting. He was born in a stable, in a place of availability and humility.<br />
<br />
Christmas is not just a historical event we remember and celebrate each year. It can become a present reality as the Christ of Christmas is reborn in the stables of our hearts today. He still does his greatest work in the most unexpected places and in the least likely people. When you and I open our hearts to His love, then, we will truly experience the spirit of Christmas, which is peace, the joy of Christmas, which is hope, and the heart of Christmas, which is love.Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-55871820410037560852009-12-22T12:20:00.000-08:002010-06-02T17:03:52.320-07:00Christmas is a time to seeO Holy night<br />
Silent trail and starlight<br />
Star among stars it may seem<br />
Zealous over nature's theme<br />
Reveal not an obscure dream<br />
Eye of darkness never behold<br />
Endangered lie as truth unfold<br />
<br />
O Bethlehem<br />
Of thee I sing<br />
Ornate chambers of a king<br />
Bliss of Heaven now descend<br />
License my heart to amend<br />
Not by scaling mortal height<br />
A child alone doth make right<br />
Helpless child cradled behold<br />
Helpless yet help me be whole<br />
<br />
O glorious sight<br />
My relentless delight<br />
Grandeur of eternity<br />
Dissolve my enmity<br />
From without and within<br />
Legacy of original sin<br />
Perpetual breath incarnate made<br />
Dispel gorge and dreary shade<br />
Smoldering manger a borrowed tomb<br />
Ordinance concealed in Mary's womb<br />
Golgotha's symbol reveal anew<br />
Christ alive my hope renew<br />
<br />
Christmas is a time to see<br />
What the manger came to be<br />
<br />
-Finney Premkumar <br />
(Published in The Sentinel, Copyright 2009)Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1026382469747874875.post-7196813516648691312009-12-22T10:47:00.000-08:002010-06-02T17:06:26.639-07:00Christmas MessageWhen the Angelic announcement was made (Luke 1:26-33) that she was going to be with child, Mary responded with a most reasonable question, "How can this be, for I am still a virgin." It was not a question invoked by a disposition partial to doubt, but came as a very natural response to a peculiarly unnatural proclamation. Mary knew, just as we know, that in order for her to conceive a child there had to be certain natural processes in place. Devoid of the necessary pre-existing conditions that would validate and appropriate the words of the messenger she was prompted to articulate her concern, "How can this be.....how can this come to pass in MY LIFE?" It's equally interesting to note that the Angel did not ask Mary to think harder or longer in order to grasp the content of the delivered message. The Angel simply concluded with these immortal words "Nothing is impossible with God."<br />
<br />
The implications of the Angel's parting eloquence could conceivably take volumes and great theological acumen to justifiably explicate. Perhaps extensive dissertations have already been published with many more waiting to be written by people with richer and deeper experiences than I. However, my personal fancy indulges me to contemplate the five words(of the Angel) that gave Mary confidence enough to say "May it be unto me.....". How did a reasonable person who asked a most reasonable question secure the audacity to accept such a preposterous declaration? When did common sense end its conclusive remarks and how did faith capitalize on its rightful territory? I believe it happened when Mary finally realized the intrinsic truth of the proclamation. In the deepest recesses of her heart, the chamber of divine revelations, she heard the Angel saying, " Mary, as long as you live within a paradigm in which you are the frame of reference, what I have decreed will not only seem improbable but quite impossible. Is it any wonder that you are perplexed and unsettled? Let me banish your fear and trembling by introducing something novel into your simple life and limited experience. When there is a paradigm shift and God becomes the frame of reference, He will redefine what is possible and impossible in your life, and in the economy of God the possibilities always outweigh the impossibilities, for in Him, by Him, through Him and because of Him all things become possible for you. Furthermore, He does not require any pre-existing conditions or natural processes to be in place to manifest His promise, for you see, He specializes in creating something out of nothing!" The Maker of heaven and earth, the Alpha and the Omega, the Eternal Now is able to accomplish all that concerns you. <br />
<br />
NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD!!!Finney Premkumarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10375546712881854956noreply@blogger.com0