Robotic Back Scratcher

I like to get back rubs and have my back scratched.  Unfortunately, my wife stubbornly refuses to rub or scratch my back every night until I fall to sleep.  So I thought it would be nice if someone invented a robotic arm that could be attached to the headboard of the bed and would scratch my back for me.

The robotic back scratcher should have a rotating cuff so that it can scratch the user’s back while the user is lying on their stomach or on their side (and can scratch to the left or to the right depending on which side of the bed you’re on).

The robotic “hand” should be equipped with pressure sensors so that it automatically maintains the right position; if the user moves, the “hand” should follow, maintaining contact with the user’s back.

Dr. Claw

The ideal design would NOT be modeled after Dr. Claw.

The “fingers” should have retractable “nails,” and the amount of pressure applied should be adjustable, so the user can choose between a light back scratch and a deep tissue massage.  (For safety, the maximum pressure when the “fingernails” are extended will be less than when they are retracted.)  Another option to consider is the ability to use a flexible “palm” instead of individual fingers.

The direction of motion should be adjustable, so the user can choose between a path that is primarily circular, side-to-side, up-and-down, or fully randomized.  The range should also be adjustable, to accommodate user preference and backs of different sizes.

The pressure and path of motion should be somewhat randomized, to make the experience more “natural” and keep it from being too repetitive.  The degree of randomness should be independently adjustable for each setting, based on user preference.

Finally, the robot should be equipped with Bluetooth so that the operation and settings can be controlled via a smartphone app.  The app should provide on-the-fly adjustments, but also allow user preferences to be saved and recalled to support different users and/or different moods.

Anyone want to build this for me?

Getting Things Done By Walking Around

A ton of people have written tons of books about how to be more effective at getting things done.  One such popular book is titled Getting Things Done.  I have not read any of these books.  I don’t know if what I’m about to say is consistent with the best recommendations out there, or if it flies in the face of all the “experts.”  However, here’s my take on one way to keep from falling behind with the “little things” that tend to accumulate.

To Do ListDon’t put off the “little things” until you have time to do them all at once.  Just do them a little at a time while on the way to do something else.

The “trick” to this is two-fold: one, you have to be observant so that the “little things” don’t go unnoticed.  Secondly, you have to learn to accurately assess what qualifies as a “little thing.”

Take household upkeep, for example.  When you’re walking through the house, pay attention to the state of things.  Notice a dusty shelf in the hallway?  Instead of adding “dust the house” to your to-do list, just grab a dust rag or feather duster and dust that one shelf.  Don’t worry about the rest of the house right now.  You can dust the TV later when you happen to be in the living room.  The key here is that you take care of one “little thing” right when you notice it, without allowing yourself to get distracted and coming off of one task to start a different task.  Stay focused on the task at hand, but just allow yourself some leeway to do a little something extra on the way.  Don’t stop what you’re doing in order to do something else, but when you’re on the move, take notice of things that need to be done, and just go ahead and do one of them, provided it won’t interfere with something more important.

Apparently, people have done studies and determined that multitasking can actually make you less productive than if you just stay focused on getting one thing done at a time.  I’m not advocating that you jump from task to task or try to do two tasks at the same time.  I’m talking about utilizing “transitional time” to squeeze in one or two little things.  If you’re supposed to be writing a paper, don’t get distracted by organizing your desk.  However, when you get up from your desk to get a drink, take some of those old papers to the recycling bin while you’re at it.  When you have to take a bathroom break, go ahead and wipe down the toilet, or do a quick scrub of the toilet bowl, or clean the mirror while you’re in there.

I’m not saying that you always need to be doing something either.  If you want to sit on the couch watching TV, that’s fine.  But when you go to the kitchen to get a snack, grab a few of those dishes on the counter and put them in the dishwasher.

Use your “walking through the house” time to look around and see what you can put away, clean, or fix in a minute or two.  If you do this regularly, it doesn’t mean you won’t ever have to schedule an extended time to do some thorough cleaning or organizing, but you can manage to do a lot of your regular upkeep without needing to set aside specific time for it.

 

 

Two Kinds of Freedom

Jonathan Edwards writes in Freedom of the Will about moral ability and natural ability.

We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the Will; either in the Faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination; or the strength of a contrary inclination; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the Will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary.

There is absolutely no way that I would ever leave my daughter on the side of the road and drive off.  Even if I wanted to be free from the responsibility, cost, and stress of raising her, it would be impossible for me to abandon her like that.  It is impossible, not because I lack the physical capacity to do so, or the mental capacity to carry out such an operation.  There is no armed guard standing watch over her, preventing me from carrying out such a thing.  There is no innate human characteristic that precludes me doing this; other people have done such things.  No, it is impossible because I lack any inclination or motive to do such a thing; or even if such an inclination or motive were to make its existence known, it would immediately, without any question, be entirely overpowered by my strong desire to keep her, protect her, and love her.

Fork in the roadIn the same way, fallen humans are morally incapable of submitting their life to God.  Adam’s sin was to put himself in the place of God; evaluating for himself what is good and what is evil.  Every human ever since has done the same thing.  Fallen man has no inclination whatsoever for giving up his assumed role of arbiter of right and wrong.  He retains control of his human faculties of thought, emotion, speech and action, and can direct these faculties according to his will.  He retains the ability to decide who he will obey, and he retains the ability to act in accordance with his decision.  But his dead spirit leaves him no motivation to exercise his will in submission to God; or even if he thought that submission to God might be a good idea, his desire for autonomy would immediately overrule such a notion.  His human nature retains the freedom to choose in accordance with his will.  However, his will is corrupt and lacks the moral freedom to choose God.

 

The Reins of Authority

If you grant someone authority that they should not have, do not be surprised when they abuse that authority.

For example, the rightful place of authority in a family rests with the parents (especially the father).  If you join a commune and give another man the right to decide what is best for your family, do not be surprised when that man abuses your child or sleeps with your wife.  It is harder for the victims to defend themselves when they have already given over authority to the wrong person.  It is easier for the perpetrator to abuse his authority when he has already assumed authority that should not belong to him.  The lines have already been blurred.

gavelThe rightful place of authority in a local church rests in a plurality of elders who satisfy the requirements given in Scripture.  If a church gives all the authority to one man, do not be surprised when he misuses funds, engages in nepotism, and sleeps with someone he is supposed to be counseling.  If a church gives the authority to a board selected for their business acumen and popularity, do not be surprised when they bicker and divide the church into factions.  If a church hands over authority to the civil government, do not be surprised when the government says the church can no longer follow the mandates of Scripture.

In the public square, it is the role of government to punish wrongdoing.  Hand that authority over to the people, and you get lynch mobs and vigilantes.

Of course, this does not mean that those in places of improper authority will always abuse that authority.  Neither does it mean that those who are given authority properly will not succumb to sin and misuse their authority.  One does not cause the other, and there are other causes for the same effects.  It also does not mean that authority cannot sometimes be properly delegated to someone who would not normally wield that authority.  However, delegation of authority should be done carefully, with limited scope and well-defined boundaries.

Don’t Label Me, Bro!

Human beings are finite, limited creatures.  This is a good thing, because this is the way God created us.  Currently, humans are marred by sin, but even after God perfects and glorifies us, we will always be finite, limited human beings.  Yet some people chafe at being limited.  They want to be independent; free to be, think, and act completely on their own terms.  They don’t want anyone else defining who they are.  They don’t want to be confined by the limits of someone else’s definition.  They don’t want to be labeled.

Labels are limiting, because labels define something.  If one direction is labeled “North,” then walking in the opposite direction cannot be considered heading North.

Some people eschew labels because they don’t want to be defined as being an evangelical, a fundamentalist, a conservative, a liberal, a Calvinist, an Arminian, a charismatic, an egalitarian, or even a Christian in some cases. They assert their independence and autonomy by refusing to identify with a particular “camp.”  They might use “un-labels” like post-evangelical, post-conservative, and post-liberal to reinforce their independence.

Rather than doing away with labels, we would do better to embrace the clarity that a label can bring.  Labels aren’t perfect, because labels can only summarize; a single label can’t communicate the variety that may be encompassed within that label.  Labels can be misunderstood and misappropriated, so a label by itself is often inadequate, but a label can still serve to improve clarity.  When something is labeled, you know something about what it is and what it isn’t.

To allow yourself to be accurately labeled requires two things: understanding yourself and understanding the meaning of the label.  It is easier to avoid labels, but there is great benefit to the personal reflection and research that is required to determine which labels apply to you.  First you have to understand what a label means.  Am I a supralapsarian or an infralapsarian?  Before I can decide if I am one, the other, or neither, I first have to understand what they each mean.  Secondly, I have to decide what I believe.  Once I understand the meaning of a label, I am confronted with a decision; do I believe this or not?  This challenges me to think and clarify what I believe to be true.  It’s not enough to just say, “I believe in Jesus” or “I believe the Bible.”  If I’m serious about being a disciple of Jesus, I need to understand what things are true about Jesus and what things aren’t; I need to understand what teaching is consistent with the Word of God and what teaching isn’t.

As for me, I am a human, not an animal.
I am an adult, not a child.
I am male, not female.
I am a heterosexual, not a homosexual.
I am married, not single.
I am a monogamist, not a polygamist.
I am a monotheist, not a polytheist.
I am a Christian, not an atheist, deist, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, pagan, secular humanist, or adherent of any other religion.
I am a trinitarian, not a unitarian, modalist, Arian, etc.
I am a protestant, not a Roman Catholic.
I am an Evangelical, not a mainliner.
I am a conservative, not a progressive, liberal, or moderate.
I am a complementarian, not an egalitarian.
I am a credobaptist, not a paedobaptist.
I am a creationist, not an evolutionist.
I am an Augustinian, not a Pelegian (or semi-pelagian).
I am a Calvinist, not an Arminian.
I am a monergist, not a synergist.
I am a compatibilist, not a libertarian.
I am a Republican, not a Democrat.
I am a capitalist, not a socialist or communist.
I am an American, not a citizen of any other country.
I am an introvert, not an extrovert.
I am supportive, not dominant.
I am a thinker, not a feeler.
I am a realist, not an idealist.
I am an optimist, not a pessimist.
I am a Cardinal’s fan, not a Cub’s fan.

Some of these labels I hold to more strongly than others.  Some may even change over time.  There are labels I may drop, and labels I may pick up as I learn more about them.

What about you?  What labels help define your beliefs and the type of person you are?  What labels have you heard that you are unsure about whether they might fit you or not?