No really...it's called determinism.

granted, i haven't read the whole thing, but this new book--Amazon.com: Books: Physioeconomics: The Basis for Long-Run Economic Growth--seems to agree with the school of thought that says if you're born in the tropics that your brain physically works differently than if you're born in, say, north america. then it applies this to global economics. meaning that certain countries will work in certain ways given their global locations. another book saying that if you are a member of Race X, you will act like this...you are determined to. your personal choices don't really ever go outside of this determination based on where you were born. sigh.

columbus isn't the white-bread place you think it is

the first Somali film EVER--Rajo (Hope)--was filmed entirely in Columbus, Ohio, USA. it's showing here and in Minneapolis, apparently. New York and LA were too Anglo-centric, i guess. :-) i hear there's even a scene with an H2 limo driving around at Port Columbus.... what does this portend?

BLOGGER - Knowledge Base - What is BlogThis!

BLOGGER - Knowledge Base - What is BlogThis!

quote for today

"Thanksgiving" by Henri Nouwen "To be grateful for the good things that happen in our lives is easy, but to be grateful for all of our lives--the good as well as the bad, the moments of joy as well as the moments of sorrow, the successes as well as the failures, the rewards as well as the rejections--that requires hard spiritual work. Still, we are only truly grateful people when we can say thank-you to all that has brought us to the present moment. As long as we keep dividing our lives between events and people we would like to remember and those we would rather forget, we cannot claim the fullness of our beings as a gift of God to be grateful for. Let us not be afraid to look at everything that has brought us to where we are now and trust that we will soon see in it the guiding hand of a loving God."

for the record

Barley's Russian Imperial Stout is the best microbrew in existence. Only a warm Guinness on a cold winter's night could be more fulfilling.

great poem for advent (which begins this Sunday)

"The Journey of the Magi" by T. S. Eliot 'A cold coming we had of it, Just the worst time of the year For the journey, and such a long journey: The ways deep and the weather sharp, The very dead of winter.' And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory, Lying down in the melting snow. There were times we regretted The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces, And the silken girls bringing sherbet. Then the camel men cursing and grumbling And running away, and wanting their liquor and women, And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters, And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly And the villages dirty and charging high prices: A hard time we had of it. At the end we preferred to travel all night, Sleeping in snatches, With the voices singing in our ears, saying That this was all folly. Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley, Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation; With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness, And three trees on the low sky, And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow. Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel, Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver, And feet kicking the empty wine-skins, But there was no information, and so we continued And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory All this was a long time ago, I remember, And I would do it again, but set down This set down This: were we led all that way for Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly, We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death, But had thought they were different; this Birth was Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death, We returned to our places, these Kingdoms, But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation, With an alien people clutching their gods. I should be glad of another death.

more food for thanksgiving thought

Interesting article about Operation Christmas Child. Not exactly right; not exactly wrong.

quote for today

this should finish up the Serres quotes. i'll post the book summary later. _____ LaTour: "So, then, science and technology remove the distinction upon which morals are based?" Serres: "Their recent achievements [do], at any rate. The old adage changes and becomes: 'Everything depends or will depend on us, someday.' Better yet: 'Everything itself will depend on us; not just all things, but systems as such, and totalities.' So, what can we do? The answer: given enough time, anything, or almost, globally speaking, since our science and technology have discovered (and this is what's totally new) some of the paths that go from what's next door or neighboring, toward totality, from the local to the global. Certainly. "But even this is disturbing and suddenly turns back upon itself. So, again, what can we do? Answer: given enough time, anything, and in quantity, indeed, twice as much. But what about quality? We are capable of all the good in the world, certainly: feeding, caring, healing. But, diametrically, we are capable of blowing up the planet, disturbing its climate, choosing to give birth only to baby boys or baby girls, of creating in our laboratories deadly viruses that are transmissible at the will of the winds. We have become the tragic deciders of life or death, masters of the greatest aspects of our former dependence: Earth, life and matter, time and history, good and evil. We have encroached upon the theories of metaphysics. "...but our very mastery seems to excape our mastery. We have all things in hand, but we do not control our actions. Everything happens as though our powers escaped our powers--whose partial projects, sometimes good and often intentional, can backfire or unwittingly cause evil.... "Our conquests outstrip our deliberate intentions. Observe, in fact, the acceleration in the trajectories of our technological advances. No sooner is it announced that something is possible that it is in part achieved, propelled down the slope of competition, imitation, or interest. It is almost as quickly considered desirable, and by the next day it is necessary: people will go to court if they are deprived of it. The fabric of our history is woven today of these immediate passages from possibility to reality, from contingency to necessity. "...Yes, we will be able to choose the sex of our children; genetics, biochemistry, physics, and their related technologies give us the necessary power, but we will be obliged to administer this power, which for the moment seems to elude us, because it goes faster and farther than we are able to forsee or control, beyond our desires to redirect it, our will to decide about it, our freedom to manage it. We have resolved the Cartesian question: 'How can we dominate the world?' Will we know how to resolve the next one: 'How can we dominate our domination; how can we master our own mastery?'" --Michel Serres with Bruno LaTour. Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time, 1990 (Eng. trans. 1995). pp. 170-172.

mo' mo' about worthship & #4

how does a group move from a focus on performance to a focus on God? how do we move from theory to practice? j, you're right--that is the important question to actually work at answering, not just talk and talk on about it. of course, one must confront ideas with other ideas. and then begin modeling those ideas outwardly. it seems like ben and robin paisley of 100 portraits have tried to start living that out--at least as it applies to corporate worship. ben's book Enter the Worship Circle has been an encouragement to us. check out more about who's actually doing this stuff at Blue Renaissance in colorado.

quote for today

this quote continues from the book Conversations of Science, Culture, and Time, which is formulated as a conversation, or maybe a question/answer session, between Bruno LaTour (a well-regarded and challenging sociology prof in Paris) and Michel Serres (a famous and confusing French philosopher teaching at Stanford). I could just post the book summary on the back cover. I probably will in the next couple of days. But this quote is a keeper...and a long one--will break up into sections. Serres: "Since you ask, here is what preceded our current day. Submitting to irremediable laws, we have always lived in an unforgiving world. Wisdom--whether age-old, classical, Christian, secular, or even recent--helped us to bear our inevitable pains, which were produced by a necessity independent of us. "From our beginnings we had regulated our actions on the distinction between things that depended on us and things that in no way depended on us. "The local--the near, the neighboring, the adjoining, the next-door--sometimes depended on us; but the spatially distant, the distant future, the Earth, the universe, humanity, matter, life, all the global categories that philosophers theorize about, always eluded our influence." LaTour: "But we still inhabit this same world of "necessity." How can we escape from it?" Serres: "Does your sweet youth prevent you from seeing the recent change? "Suddenly, toward the middle of the century, at the end of WWII, we have the rise in power of all the mixed scientific disciplines--physics, biology, medicine, pharmacology--plus the whole set of technologies brought about by them. We are finally truly effective in the organization of work, in providing food, in matters of sexuality, of illness, in the hope of prolonging life--in short, in everyday life, intimate and collective. Further, we are finally the masters of space, of matter, and of life. All of this has pushed back the limits and almost eliminated what does not depend on us. We have found ways to lessen fatigue, to practically abolish need and pain, to avoid inevitable distress. So what remains irremediable? "Preserved, appeased, practically anesthetized, two or three generations of the West...have just lived like gods, in the happy and safe certitude that, henceforth, everything depended--if not immediately, at least in the short term--on their knowledge or their technical achievements. "While the old global necessity was collapsing, they devoted themselves, in security, to the intoxication of a growing consumerism that reached new heights of consumption, and they experienced the ensuing crisis in everyday morality, which had obviously become useless and incomprehensible. "...So here we are, masters even of things that used to hold us in subjection. Death itself is pushed back and old age is rejuvenated. Life's briefness, wept over or sung by the ancient sages, has been succeeded by calculations of its expectancy, which, for wealthy women in wealthy countries, exceeds 70 years. Our wisdom is shaken by the tearing down of those objective dependencies that were formerly irremediable and unforgiving." --Serres and LaTour. Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time, 1990 (Eng. trans. 1995). pp. 169-170.

mo ramblings about gatherings and point #4 (this is very long. sorry!)

The thoughts posted on 11/19 were definitely not codified principles--merely observations in travels from one state o' community to another--and were meant to be fairly exploratory. However, i do make claims that they're informed observations, not just my own randomness being thrown out into cyberspace for my own benefit. And in that light, maybe have some weight when placed in conjunction with others' observations. But as any experience is, they were intended as a statement of expertise in a limited arena. Meaning if I'd done this kind of thing for 40 years in 10 different countries, I might see things entirely differently. But given where I am now, what I've been through, and what I haven't been through, these are some thoughts on my present location. Are they orderly and complete? absolutely not. Do I hope they are springboards for further discussion? always. Questions: Do these thoughts of mine mean that you O Interested Reader should respond in a particular manner? Are they just my thoughts and are thereby useless in any other context? Are they rules or principles for any one else to live by? Would someone else involved in this group see these same things? Is every observation subjective and peculiar to the observer? I don't feel like I can adequately answer any of them. All I can say is that they are based on something real and seem to have elements of applicability...but they may not. Even the assumption of applicability may itself be illusory and based on my subjective understanding of the universe. Be that as it may... I don't intend this blog to be a journal of my thoughts intended for the voyeur in all of us. This thing was originally intended as a mechanical tool of dialogue and as such will be full of untested thoughts and ideas. So I appreciate any "testing" you may level at any statement, quote, idea posted. And it's the responsibility of the post-ers to appreciate the testing process and try to work through that to form better, tested thoughts. OKAY all of that was disclaimer/introduction/explanation. The following will be further thoughts on a particular point that was questioned by a couple of individuals. Here is my attempt to think through the "testing" of the observation. Hopefully it will be logical and maybe even true. _____________ The old post: "4. music is important. the tenor of the group changes based on the type of music. bombastic music seems to move the group toward seeing the music/worship leader as someone important and separate from the group. quieter music seems to de-emphasize the leader and make it more of a group decision to worship." A test to consider: "...I would a least like to know the context for your comment...i dont feel [bombasity in worship] seperates [the worship leader] from the group. It seems to depend on the sociology of the group far more than the style of the leader. I would like to think that a good mix of strong vocal / guitar leading and softer more inviting access points provides people enough of a dynamic range to get on the boat at whatever spot they feel most comfortable." There is probably a thorough response to this "test" that is very involved and probably not too helpful unless we had a lot of time on our hands--so please read this response as an inadequate one. But it seems like some questions that inform any sort of response would need to examine: "What is worship?" "What is the response of the worshipper?" "What are the most important ways of worshipping?" "Do these ways grow out of a sociological/psychological need, a preference, a theological reason, a scriptural mandate?" "Are there any 'Sacred Cows' in the ways we worship?" "Is there 'Baby' and is there 'Bathwater' in worship and how do you distinguish between the two and what is worth throwing out?" These are tough questions. They certainly don't need to be answered every time we enter into a time of worshipping the Lord, but they are probably things we should think about from time to time. Because this group is new (in the sense that it's the first time these particular people have gotten together regularly) and because I happen to be someone who has been to every meeting, I was noting that in the context of this meeting, quiet music didn't seem to put as much emphasis on who was leading and instead let the voices blend together with the music more--it seemed less important WHO was leading or even that there WAS a leader. Instead, people were involved in singing worship songs TOGETHER. I noted this because, of the 251 times the Bible (OT + NT) uses the word "worship", it does so in the context of a group or ethnicity ("Israel worshipped the Lord," "He was a worshipper of the Lord," "He had gone to Jerusalem to worship"). Significantly, it does not name a leader or a particular style of worship. In the two NT passages where singing is talked about--Eph. 5:19 and Col 3:16--it distinctly talks about "speak[ing] to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" and "as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." So the context of the question is one in which I am asking "Is having a worship leader a 'Sacred Cow' in charisvengelicalism?" "Does the type of music we use emphasize certain theological ideas we think are true or is it more a product of sociological ideas?" "What should the word 'worship' be applied to?" And the things I've seen so far? (1) We usually use the word worship to refer to musical expressions of love for God. (2) If we didn't have someone leading us in song using a guitar, no one would spontaneously burst into a psalm, hymn, or spiritual song. (3) Music powerfully affects the mood or "feel" of a given gathering time. (4) The more bombastic music--meaning not just louder but also more performance oriented with lots of difficult sounds or movement--seems to draw attention to the performer of the music and the audience/performer duality...the "wows" are given more to the performer than to God. (5) The performer goes through some degree of internal struggle wondering if they performed their duty well--e.g. "Did I lead people into worship?" "Did I perform well?"--and often feels insecure about their performance, even the fact that they performed! These aren't intended to be value judgements as much as simply observations, though there is an element of critique here. Is it unique to the group--a sociological construct that could change from group to group, church to church, country to country? I suppose there's no way to know unless you actually test it. And since we're talking about an implicit observation anyway, someone might say "This is the general milleu of the group" and I might say "This is the problem with having a performance-oriented model and leader." In an instance where a person who would call themselves a worship leader might say "That may be true for others but not for me," I would simply point out that the Bible stresses the responsibilty of any leader. If the point of a worship leader is to bring one to God (something to be debated I'm sure) through music and the leader simply brings one into a feeling of awe about the skills or personality of the worship leader, then there's a problem. In any case, leadership isn't to be entered into lightly. And as "worship leader" isn't in any of the lists of spiritual gifts, fruits, roles, etc. indicated in the NT, I would say the character of the person leading is much more imporant than their skill as a leader. The burden of the "cult of personality" is fully on the shoulders of the congregation/group. It is also fully on the shoulders of the individual leading. What would I suggest instead? Am I saying that everything should go back to Gregorian Chant where there is no accompaniment and everyone sings the same note so that an individuals musical performance would be indistinguishable from anyone else's--so that no one would receive glory other than God? No. I mean, that's not even practical, so it's not worth talking about. I guess as long as the Willow Creek megachurch model is held out as the ideal for any charisvengelical church, there will have to be amazing preachers and worship leaders and the cult of personality will be mixed with very real and good growth and development, worship and praise to God. Hopefully as the church moves back into a focus on smaller gatherings, discipleship, and the overall lifestyle of a Christian versus a weekly meeting centered on what goes on on stage--hopefully as the meeting itself becomes more participatory--non-experts will be involved in leadership at all levels: teaching/preaching, evangelism, playing music, singing, service, and pulling out the gifts of others. Hopefully we can move into a time where people are able to recognize the talents of individuals as the gifts of a good Giver and not gods in and of themselves. But then, that's the struggle of the whole human condition, isn't it?

go to sleep / radiohead

what a great song. about 300 essays could be written using this song as a starting place. What a great video. and this video really takes it to the next level. i love how the CG Tom Yorke looks sort of like the Brad Pitt character in 12 Monkeys. and then there's the whole "show not tell" of (1) simulation vs. reality (2) automation in corporate working world (3) difference between human and machine (d) even the commentary on 9/11 with the buildings reassembling themselves (5) the red flower growing out of the pavement that, while the only pretty thing in the video, is still artificial and disregarded by everyone. essays. lots of them. btw, tom yorke looks a little like a monkey. lyrics: Go To Sleep something for the rag and bone man over my dead body something big is gonna happen over my dead body someone saw someoneÕs daughter over my dead body this is how i ended up sucked in over my dead body i'm gonna go to sleep and let this wash all over me we dont really want a monster taking over tip toeing, tying down we don't want the loonies takin' over tip toeing, tying down our arms the pretty horses come to you as you sleep i'm not gonna to sleep and let this wash over me

quote for today

difficult reading--especially because some of the translation from the French is awkward. not like i could do better.... Michael Serres is (was?) a philosopher/historian of science that also studied and emulated literature a great deal. he believes(d?) that there should be less of a separation between the humanities, the arts, the social sciences, and physical science. and that philosophers should strive to understand all of it! he also happens(d?) to be a practicing catholic. "Try to discover from whence come those rare men who behave rightly during a dark and violent period. Have you ever asked yourself what protects someone from the dangers, deviations, or crimes of a given ideology, if not a religion and its inner anchor?" --Michel Serres (with Bruno Latour). Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time. (1990 trans. 1995). pp. 19.

erik, yes that name is cool. If you name your child that i will kick you in the shins. sorry that i broke my silence just to say the above.

quote for today

i'm just starting this book... don't know if i like it yet, but it's good ol' new philosophy.... "The Age of Enlightenment was very instrumental in categorizing as irrational any reason not formed by science. Now I maitain that there is as much reason in the works of Montagne or Verlaine as there is in physics or biochemistry and, reciprocally, that often thre is as much unreason scattered through the sciences as there is in certain dreams. Reason is statistically distributed everywhere; no one can claim exclusive rights to it. "This division thus is echoed in the image, in the imaginary picture that one makes of time. Instead of condemning or excluding, one consigns a certain thing to antiquity, to archaism. On no longer says "false" but rather, "out-of-date," of "obsolete." In earlier times people dreamed; now we think. Once people sang poetry; today we experiement efficiently. History is thus the projection of this very real exclusion into an imaginary, even imperialistic time. The temporal rupture is the equivalent of a dogmatic expulsion." --Michel Serres (with Bruno Latour). Conversations on Science, Culture, and Time. (1990 trans. 1995). pp. 50.

the coolest name ever

I just wanted to throw this out there: Utsira. why does that just sound so cool?

ultrasound #2

according to the doctor, baby looks very, very healthy....almost too healthy. like have you seen Rosemary's Baby? oh, wait, that was the anti-Christ.... but what if the baby was like a superbaby and got really smart and learned how to read like in the first week of its life and then ended up feeling superior to its parents in every way and so had us put in a "home" even though we're in our 20s.... weird. so, good news. b is fine. the doctor commended her on not gaining weight. i guess fat moms=fat babies and fat babies=difficult delivery. he pulled out a story about how native americans used to have pregnant women work harder in the field than most of the other people so they wouldn't die in childbirth. (the baby would be smaller and easier to push through the birth canal.) he seemed to suggest the idea that pregnant women should eat whatever, gain whatever was a bad idea and more cultural than based on real medical info. like if mom goes crazy and eats bon-bons while watching TV during pregnancy it will negatively impact her. the blessing is that b isn't like that anyway. whoa... tired from all this typing.... pass the bon-bons.

so here i am at a coffee shop

these days are so numbered. 20 weeks left, to be precise. i thought i might jot down some stuff on the state of the ekklesia, for lack of a better term. maybe more to remind the me-of-the-future how & what it was than to communicate to you, O Loyal Reader. as you may or may not know, b and i have embarked on a great and strange mission to actually live out some body-of-Christ stuff. beside us a number of other intrepid (or foolish) have traveled. we have listened and learned a lot from groups such as the quest (columbus) and The Landing Place. and read a ton--i posted some of the more significant small/simple/home church stuff a coupld of days ago. we really believe a couple of things are obvious about what christians should believe and live out their beliefs--though we recognize that we don't hold the corner on that market and that there are lots of other good ways to act out the gospel. but i thought i might type a couple of things i've found significant--at least for posterity sake. 1. the gospel is to be lived out. that means as many people should be brought into the doing of the gospel as possible. this could look like so many things. for our group, it means at least that many individuals should be able to try their hands at "teaching", "worship", "prayer", and leadership in general. responsibility should be shared; it's the responsibility of those in recognized leadership to get those outside of recognized leadership to take responsibility for leading. 2. "making disciples of all nations" is tougher than it looks. the more formally Christian, the tougher it is to get out of the rut of "what seems right." some of the most active, most service-minded, most insightful and bold and wise believers in our group are those who have been in a relationship with Jesus for the least amount of time. those of us that have been believers for a really long time, especially those involved in one particular "brand" of christianity, are the most resistant to change, growth, discipleship. 3. reading is important. all the world seems to be a text. words seem to be cheap, images cheaper, and the complacency about service is only rivaled by complacency about maintaining an analytical stance on anything. it is easier to pop on the TV than it is to struggle through a chapter of scripture; easier to talk on the phone than to get into an accountable relationship with a peer-Christian face-to-face. 4. music is important. the tenor of the group changes based on the type of music. bombastic music seems to move the group toward seeing the music/worship leader as someone important and separate from the group. quieter music seems to de-emphasize the leader and make it more of a group decision to worship. 5. people like to hear themselves talk. i have no idea how to work with this yet. 6. there is never enough time. we meet for about three hours on sunday mornings and by the end I feel like we've barely begun to scratch the surface. attention spans will not allow for much more than that, however. i admit that in the past i never could understand how in the bad-ol-days the pentecostals and methodists and baptists, etc. could meet for a whole day. now i can. 7. we all think we have a great handle on what God is up to. this goes for me maybe even more than others in our group. it's tough and humbling to lay down our expertise about who God is, what he's up to, and what our response should be. we've not had big explosions of showy spiritual gifts yet...i'm not sure what we'd do if that ever came up...but it's interesting to see just how tentative everyone is about what to expect from week to week. for instance, we talk about the idea of church from week to week, but we have not yet formally come out and said "this is a church" meaning "this plays as important a role--if not more--in your life than attending a well-performed service with a loud band, emphatically delivered sermon, mobs of prayer-warriors, videos, etc." the idea that this would be challenging to some re-emphasizes to me our tendency to put God in a box...to assume that he can only show up if certain conditions are brought about by our own actions. i am like this just as much as anyone else. okay, we have to go home now...this was constructive, but only a begining. i'm sure i'll come back and revise/delete some of these later.... anyone want to comment on any of these thoughts?

quote for today

from an article published by friend Mike Jentes of The Quest (the link for quest-columbus is over to the left there). "Practicing hospitality was modeled to me and I want to model it to my children. I want them to deeply understand that having people in our home for meals or to stay is part of the normal Christian life. It's not weird or once-a-year. It is normal for the follower of Jesus."

wow

the cluetrain manifesto

interesting. is guess these 95 theses are getting pretty influential. or not. here is the offending blog

small group/house church resources on the web

The best resources of all are these books and there are tons of websites: House2House WPBVineyard Cinci Vineyard (Kevin Rains) quest house church central home church network problems with house churches why house churches are not a panacea theology of house churches what are house churches? simple church more simple church new church church planting manuals

quote for today

This just goes to prove that anything worth knowing is printed on instant oatmeal packets. Go out and share your new-found knowledge with those who need it. From: the back of a Quaker Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal packet "Q.: When did dinosaurs first become popular?" "A.: Over 150 years ago--thanks in part to a London exhibit in 1851 that included full-size replicas of dinosaurs." Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.

you've got to be kidding

take the What Brand are You? test don't use it to brand your company

Different Conceptions of Freedom

Fascinating! I read the freedom quote on the blog before I read it in my mailbox from the Bruderhof commuity. It is interesting, because it shows a state of freedom that is not static or stationary, but very dynamic. However, beyond that, it seems to make dynamism the defining characteristic of freedom regardless of the direction in which one is dynamically going. When I clicked on the link to see more of the article, it instead went straight to a different article by Eberhald Arnold that I think fulfilled this directionless aspect of seeing freedom. Check it out... The modern airplane can illustrate for us what true freedom guided by the Holy Spirit is. No matter which way the wind blows, the pilot flies his plane in the direction he decides. With this flight, all he has had in mind, all that has inspired his heart will be carried out. For thousands of years humankind has had this same ability to steer ships purposefully by the helm. When Christ is in the ship, it is steered by the Holy Spirit. And if the entire crew and passengers look to no guidance but that of the good Spirit, then they are all truly free. - Arnold vs. Freedom is not a thing you can receive as a gift. One can be free even under a dictatorship on one simple condition, that is, if one struggles against it. A man who thinks with his own mind and remains uncorrupted is a free man. A man who struggles for what he believes to be right is a free man. - Silone

Blog Happy

Oh, my gosh, you guys, it is so great to visit the blog again and hear where we're coming from. Roger, it is so great to hear from you again, man! Where the heck are you, these days? Are you in England, in the US, on some other contintent that takes me three minutes to remember even existed?? I am so glad I had a brief moment to check in and read the blogs. I laughed, I cried, it was better that CATS, but alas, it's only a moment. I think I"m staying over night here at my folks' place, so I shall try and insert something other than cotton candy encouragements later. But for now, adieu, ta ta, and you know that while you may not have much of my bloggable energy, I am praying for you guys.

quote for today

"Freedom" by Ignazio Silone. From "Bread and Wine" Freedom is not a thing you can receive as a gift. One can be free even under a dictatorship on one simple condition, that is, if one struggles against it. A man who thinks with his own mind and remains uncorrupted is a free man. A man who struggles for what he believes to be right is a free man. You can live in the most democratic country in the world, and if you are lazy, callous, servile, you are not free, in spite of the absence of violence and coercion, you are a slave. Freedom is not a thing that must be begged from others. You must take it for yourself, whatever share you can.

why army pay money funny?

thanks john for sending this article about some apparent inequity in our armed services.

everything changes/everything stays the same

more links. not higher quality links, just more. some of them are actually good. any similarity between this blog and a monty python movie is completely coincidental. nee.

neil postman warned us....

AmphetaDesk - Syndicated Aggregator Remember Amusing Ourselves to Death? Remember how he said the worst was here when the news itself was digested for us and piped in little teeny bite-sized pieces? Remember when he said that the lines between history-making-news and the Weekly World News and Newsweek and plain old mindless entertainment dressed up like news would be so badly blurred that we would treat them all the same? He was right.

quote for today

More Lewis. Because you can never have too much. This follows the quote from yesterday ___ "Moved by a desire to change the subject, I asked why the Solid People, since they were full of love, did not go down into Hell to rescue the Ghosts. Why were they content simply to meet them on the plain? One would have expected a more militant charity. "'Ye will understand that better, perhaps, before ye go,' said he. 'In the meantime, I must tell ye they have come further for the sake of the Ghosts than ye can understand. Everyone of us lives only to journey further and further into the mountains. Every one of us has interrupted that journey and retraced immeasurable distances to come down today on the mere chance of saving some Ghosts. Of course i is also joy to do so, but ye cannot blame us for that! And it would be no use to come further even if it were possible. The sane would do no good if they made themselves mad for the madmen.' 'But what of the poor Ghosts who never get into the bus at all?' 'Everyone who wishes it does. Never fear. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened'" --MacDonald and Lewis From: Lewis. The Great Divorce. pp. 71-72.

more on matrix poo

"Not since failing to receive the Millenium Falcon for Christmas in 1986 have I been so disappointed." Roger, couldn't have said it better myself. Although, if you'd read Uncle Screwtape's advice from 11.6, you may have been better prepared. check out this very involved, excellent essay to find out more about what some people are thinking about the Matrix Trilogy. short of that, at least read the metaphilm interpretation.

some other blogs you might want to check out

flight of the robberfly ears to the track dan "foxymophandlemomma" fox anyone else out there i forgot?

Shakespeare meets Inspired Word of God

Matrix 3 surely needs to be investigated for the amount of borrowed material, and the cinematographers fined for sharing one brain between the whole crew and cast. What on earth was it all about. Crap as it was in answering my questions or giving me any sense of ...well anything...I am going back for a second viewing. Not because it is good but because it is a social outlet and chance to be with friends. Can anyone explain what the movie was supposed to tell me? Am I dumber for having even entertained the thought that it was supposed to inform me of anything. The difference between Matrix 3 and LOR is not the cast nor the effects...but the fact that Tolkien was a writer...and the Wachowski Twits (or whoever wrote it) are playboy wankers from Bognor Regis). Not since failing to receive the Millenium Falcon for Christmas in 1986 have I been so disappointed.

quote for today

some days, just go back to the source.... "'There have been men before now who got so interested in proving the existence of God that they came to care nothing for God Himself...as if the good Lord had nothing to do but exist! There have been some who were so occupied in spreading Christianity that they never gave a thought to Christ. Man! Ye see it in smaller matters. Did ye never know a lover of books that with all his first editions and signed copies had lost the power to read them? Or an organizer of charities that had lost all love for the poor? It is the subtlest of all the snares.'" --George MacDonald to C. S. Lewis. From: C. S. Lewis. The Great Divorce (1946; Touchstone edition). pp. 71.

i'm just sayin'...

watch the Meat-rix

read this great interpretation of X-Men & X2 it definitely satisfies more than Matrix: Revolutions. that movie stunk.

comments reminder

I just wanted to say to everyone out there, a regular post-er or not, that comments are a good way to communicate/respond. Make use of them and--to us post-ers--check your posts to see if someone made a comment on one of your posts that you should take into consideration. Speak! "'Fools' said I, 'You do not know Silence like a cancer grows. Hear my words that I might teach you, Take my arms that I might reach you.' But my words like silent raindrops fell, And echoed In the wells of silence "And the people bowed and prayed To the neon god they made. And the sign flashed out its warning, In the words that it was forming. And the sign said, 'The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls And tenement halls.' And whisper'd in the sounds of silence." --from "Sounds of Silence", Simon and Garfunkel (1964).

quote for today

i'm not sure what to make of this, but it's a good thought for a monday. "Quit Licking Those Wounds" by Samuel Beckett; from "Worstward Ho" Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

Roger's Strange Way in

Hi! That is a resounding hello to one and all, and as it seems I have missed a great deal I shall not try to comment on any of it. However, it seems you need a juvenile voice to make these pages more complete and representative of a true population...where not everyone is on par with the level of demi-god. Well I shall talk of me just because I am excited at what is happening and just how bizzarre a turn my life is taking. Not to keep you in suspense any longer...I have provisionally accepted a position working with a NPO utilizing sport ministry in the community, and especially with kids who are on the fringes of being kicked out of school. Pay is crap, but I am completely overjoyed by the prospects of working with the community, and the possibilities that exist both internationally and acafdemically; for I am certain I shall be compelled to write of my findings. So who is this person I have become? Bad pay...requires trust...charity work...socially disadvantaged youth...all my worst fears combined to create something that I cannot help but say thank you for. Brad...sport ministry...sport ministry with refuges....with disadvataged...with the church...with real people. Do you have any advice? How I wish we could tele-conference weekly. Erik...so many good things happening in your life...what are your thoughts on my venture into the unknown? Any other takers? Respond at your leisure...and in the meantime I shall review the bloggs. It took me so long to remember my password! I'm a bit scatty right now...caught up in excitement.

Fascinating!

Dude, Rock on for the entries - poetry, old Christian songs, spoken quotes, written quotes, blogs, personal thoughts, and a carrot cake for dessert! Sheesh! I wish I had more time, but blog on!

Re: Michael Moore

Dude, Is Michael Moore proposing that we 1) remove Bush from the White House using Iraq as a reason, 2) get anyone in the White House, doesn't matter if it's Bush or not - to remove the American presence in Iraq ASAP, 3) join the American media by presenting only anti-war facts and ultimately put them in the White House, or 4) regardless of what happens with the White House, commit to the lesser of evils, ie. either finish as best as possible what we've started or pull out and leave a terrain worse off than when we got there? 'Cause no offense to him, but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't matter who's in the White House - they aren't going to just "pull out" of Iraq, though it's a great symbol for political rallying when disconnected from reality. And seeing how we are at war with a nation in the Middle East (right or wrong), the fact that we are rebuilding a nation (although arguably how well) and that we are only losing one person a day - makes it the best fought war, probably in human history.

let me bury you in quotes today

a little follow up to the Michael Moore stuff earlier. Wooster actually got mentioned! as always, grain of salt.... "All over America, this is what I saw on the tour: Tens of thousands of average Americans who don't like their commander-in-chief lying to them in order to start a war. Not a night went by where I didn't have parents or siblings of soldiers in Iraq coming up to me, many of them in tears, pleading with me to "do something" to help bring their loved ones home from this war without end. It was heart-wrenching, and I never knew quite what to say except to tell them that they were not alone and that all of us are doing our best to get rid of George W. Bush. But that's a year away. How many more of our children will be sent to their deaths for another no-bid multi-billion dollar Halliburton contract in the next 12 months? What was amazing to me on this tour was that some of the biggest and most enthusiastic crowds were in hard-core Republican areas like Stockton, California and Wooster, Ohio. I get it when 13,000 show up and try to squeeze in as they did at Berkeley's Greek Theatre. But when five or six thousand show up in places like Pullman, Washington (on the Idaho border) or Ypsilanti, Michigan, I'm convinced that there has been a shift, a real shift, in public opinion, and the only question now is what are WE going to do? This week the Senate gave Bush the $87 billion he was looking for to continue the debacle in Iraq. But the Republicans knew that voting for this might come back to haunt them, so they asked the Democrats if they could just have a "voice vote" so no one's name would have to be recorded as having voted in favor of sending the nation into permanent debt (a debt that may not be paid off in our lifetime). The Democrats, afraid of appearing ìunpatriotic," agreed to the deal. This was actually a compliment to all of YOU, as both parties know that the people are simmering and the only way they can get away with continuing this war is to do so in hiding (like the way they hide the body bags from public view as they return home). What they don't get is that we are not going to let them off the hook so easily, and we will force them to take a stand sooner or later. How many more deaths will it take? Not many, if what I saw this past month on the road across America is any indication. I have many stories to tell you about the people I encountered, the things I saw and heard, and the strange hope and optimism I now have that we can turn things around." --Michael Moore, e-mail communication, 7 November, 2003.

quote for today

challenging and very different than the philosophy of biology stuff. makes you want to sit down under a tree and gather the animals unto you, St. Francis of Assisi-like. :) Do Not Worry by Eberhard Arnold; from "Salt and Light" ì'You should be perfect like the Father.' There is no other perfection, only that of love. So be aware of the things that thwart this love: property and worry! Wherever possessions are heaped up while elsewhere people go hungry and cold, there is no love. So gather no wealth for yourself. Do not worry. Worriers build life on wealth just as much as the wealthy. Look at the birds and flowers, and believe in the loving God, the Father who provides everything."

More philosophy of biology...hold on!

I was reading some more of Michael Ruse's Mystery of Mysteries last night. Not only does it have a fascinating point of its own to make (that the theory of evolution is in part, but not wholly, a social construction), but on the way, it really illuminates what a lot of other thinkers have been throwing out there. Take the late Stephen Jay Gould for instance. You may recall that he was famous--and appeared on "The Simpsons"--in part because he was able to "popularize" the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" (PE). PE basically means that micro-evolution/natural selection (i.e., genotypic mutations being selected for by the environment) cannot possibly account for the huge leaps in morphology (i.e., body plans of plants and animals) over time (what we call macro-evolution). Gould postulated that there must be times when evolution jumps forward, punctuating the general equilibrium, to begin a new type of species. Gould thought that this punctuation was a function of blind chance. The overall effect of the theory was to clash pretty dramatically with staunch macro-evolutionists and eventually to slide the theory of PE into most college-level biology textbooks as a "real, accepted theory of evolution." Richard Dawkins of The Selfish Gene fame has never been comfortable with PE because instead of pointing at gradual development of all life toward some imaginary goal of becoming more fit (without a divine Watchmaker, of course), it seems everything is very, very accidental and still strangely planned. But enough about my ideas, let's hear from Ruse (covering Gould).... "And what all this means is this: although in some particular instance the pressure for change may build up, no immediate--certainly no general smooth--change is possible. The constraints rule it out. Then, as it were, in some cases the dam may break, the constraints may give way, and a rapid change may occur, switching organisms to radically new forms. However, since these changes are rare, one would not generally expect to find them at the microlevel. One would spot them only by turning to long-term studies, that is, to evolution at the macro-level. "Most importantly, one could not expect to explain such constraint-breaking changes purely in lower-level terms--natural selection and so forth. They are exceptional. Yet, although exceptional and inexplicable in lower-level terms, the changes one sees in the broader, macro perspective do have implications for our understanding at the lower level. Not only is reductionism challenged in the sense of the belief that everything at the upper level [macroevolution] can be explained in terms of the lower level [microevolution through natural selection], but it is also challenged in the sense of the belief that the upper level can never have relevance for understanding causal mechanisms at the lower level. "Precisely because time does show that evolution can involve massive rapid (instantaneous or near-instantaneous) change, we should be very wary of claims about ubiquitous adaptationism. Perhaps the constraints of development mean that the new forms of organisms, their Baupl‰ne [something like "body plans" or morphological/structural tendencies], are not overwhelmingly functional. They are more accidental than anything else. Which menas that adaptation is very much less widespread than is dreamt of in the Darwinian heaven. To assume otherwise--to assume that adaptation is general--is to indulge in..."Just So" stories (so named after Rudyard Kipling's fantastical accounts of adaptations like the elephant's nose)." --Michael Ruse, Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction? (1999). pp.140-141.

quote for today

Lonely? by Anna Mow; from "Two or Ninety-Two" Being alone does not necessarily mean loneliness. Your condition depends more on how you get along with yourself than on how little you possess. If you have a great emptiness in your life, you are not only alone but lonely. If your security has depended on others, or on their dependence on you, then when left alone, you are lonely. Poverty of mind and soul is poverty indeed and loneliness indeed. If you feel unwanted, unneeded, laid on the shelf, no good to anyone, unappreciated--watch out! All these feelings of being neglected are evidence of thinking from self-centeredness, and they are all dangerous. Stop clinging to the wrong self and open your life to the true self, which is possible through Christ.

everything good will eventually suck.

That's probably not fair. But I'm about to drop $8 (+$8 for popcorn and drinks) on what could be the worst disappointment for a trilogy I've ever heard of. And the problem is, I have to do it again on Saturday. I've not seen Matrix Revolutions yet, but 90% of the reviews pan it. Here's a rather descriptive one: The Matrix Revolutions (2003) Written & Directed by The Brothers Wachowski Starring Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Hugo Weaving, Mary Alice My Advice: Rent the DVD when it comes out for the FX, otherwise skip it. We're right where we left off in the last film: Neo (Reeves) is in a coma, Bane (Ian Bliss) has somehow gotten Agent Smith (Weaving) inside of him, Zion is about to get its tits shot off, and Morpheus (Fishburne) is feeling like a dumbass because, seemingly, the Oracle (now played by Alice after the untimely death of Gloria Foster) lied. Now Neo's lost somewhere between worlds and if he doesn't get back soon, then the human race is toast. Congratulations, Brothers Wachowski! You've given us the worst third movie in a series sinceSuperman III. Or, since you're comic fans, I'll put it another way: you've given us the cinematic equivalent of Secret Wars II. After the completely brilliant setup of the second film, the brothers manage to fumble the ball in a spectacular, tragic way. The first film set up everything, the second debunked the first film and the third film manages to disappoint almost from jump: after a completely pointless opening sequence, the highlight of which is people running upside down and shooting, we're treated to an endless series of missed opportunities. All of those neat questions you conceived from the enigmas in the second film? None of them are answered. And they're not even not-answered in that, "Ooh, we're being mysterious and mystical and cheerily obtuse" way--you know, the one that can be endearing and thought-provoking. No, no. They're just not addressed. At all. Which is amazing, considering that this film is even "talkier" than the second--the difference being the second film's dialogue had meat to it. This time around, we're given nothing but third-rate overwrought "heart felt" garbage, with none of the philosophy or banter that makes the series function. Reeves is given nothing to do but play the suffering savior and fight. Fishburne is given even less to do, since he's reduced to playing second fiddle to Jada Pinkett Smith, who does step up (and steps up well). Moss does have some nice moments, but thanks to the subpar script, all three leads are reduced nearly to caricature. Instead, the standout is Weaving, who gets even more maniacal than before, with an honorable mention to Bliss, who apes Weaving so well it's uncanny. If the film's that bad, you might be wondering why I still gave it two and a half cups. Well, I figure I gave Pearl Harbor two cups, and the FX here was better than that film, so there you have it. Like that Michael Bay mistake, where the actual attack was amazing, the highpoint of this film is the battle for Zion sequence towards the middle. Even it, though, is marred by the fact that it goes on too damn long, when any editor worth a damn would have done some intercutting between Zion and the other two plotlines that were going on at the time. Three plotlines, overlong movie--where I saw providence, the editor...well, must have fallen asleep. If you want to see the FX, wait for the DVD, advance to the middle sequence, watch it, and then return the damn thing to Blockbuster. If I sound pissed off, it's because I am. And I'm warning you: don't see this film--because whatever third movie you envisioned in your head, no matter how lame, has got to be better than this. Let's hope if there is another movie (and there will be), they get better filmmakers than these two to helm it--or at the very least, the filmmakers from the first two Matrix flicks. Don't know where those two went, but they sure weren't here.

responses enabled!!!

hi all! now you can write back to the blog, should you feel like responding to what anyone says. there may be some kinks in the system, so be patient.

quote for today

here's a poem I love by John F. Dean and read many years ago by Bono. "Driving to Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve" Five-thousand million years ago, this earth lay heaving in a mass of rocks and fire Wasting, burdened with its emptiness Tonight, when arthropods and worms and sponges have given way to dinosaurs And dinosaurs to working, wandering apes Homo erectus have given way to Sapiens, and he to Homo sapiens sapiens (alias Paddy Mack) Look down on Dublin from the hills around And lights could be a million Christmas trees Still firs standing, while in the sky a glow as if of dawn This day a light shall shine on us The Lord is born within our city Look along to the river toward O'Connell Bridge The lights, the neon signs, all stream on water like breathed-on strips of tinsel All is still... Eleven-thirty, pubs begin to empty Men stop to argue, sway and say the name of Jesus For those who have known darkness Who have now seen a wonderous light Those who have dwelt on unlit streets To them the light has come Tonight, few cars go by The blocks of flats with windowed-plastic trees And fairy lights stand, watching for a miracle Here are no dells where fairies might appear Out from the dark an ambulance comes speeding Sickly blue lights search in siren-still The mystery of the night ticks slowly on It will pass and leave memories of friends and small, half-welcomed things In Him was life In Him, life was the light of man For neither prehistoric swans nor trilobites, the mesozoic birds Neanderthal, nor modern man had ever dreamt or seen what was our God The shops are gay with lights and bright things All save funeral homes, they dare not advertise their presence As midnight peels and organs start to play Two cars meet headlong in a haze of drink The crash flicks into silence Pain crawls like a slime through blood and into limbs God is revealed, a baby naked, crying in a crib In the church porches and out along the grounds Teenagers laugh and swear, smokin', watchin' girls So, once more, Christmas trails away Its meaning moves back into the mist and the march of time written by: John F. Dean When played: Bono recites this poem on radio around December 31, 1983.

the new homepage

i published this new home page this morning through www.mac.com. It's friggin ugly. Go look= my home page

i'm thinking this too!

I stole from Alan Creech's blog. He wrote this a couple weeks ago and I've been chewing on it. Then a couple of nights ago, we had dinner with my aunt Kathy (who just went in for brain surgery and has come out again okay--thanks for your prayers). Kathy kind of quizzed me on my decision to apply to Notre Dame. She came at it from a funny angle, "You going to a Catholic school?" "I thought you were a fundamentalist" and "How much do you know about the Jesuits?" and things like that. It was the best conversation I've had with her in my whole life. :) Anyway, here's that blog entry: www.alancreech.com October 24, 2003 >> 1:16 PM curioso > catholikos I don't know why I'm thinking about this today - but I am. Just rummaging around the attic of my mind and heart about Catholicism. This is, as many of you know, the ground of my spiritual planting. I came into the Kingdom through the door of the Catholic Church - really, I did. And, although I am not presently a practicing Catholic (big C), I still draw heavily from that wellspring. My leaving that Church wasn't a matter, at all, of any anger or thinking that it was "evil" or of my finally getting really "saved." I simply felt that God was leading me in another direction at the time. Now, my beliefs have evolved - theology has morphed over the years. I am in a different place now than I was. Aren't you? I also, very interestingly, find myself coming back around to much of what I was taught as a Catholic. I also find many of my "emerging church" friends coming around to them as well - even though they never were Catholic. The collective view of soteriology (theology of salvation) is shifting in that direction - even including a renewed understanding of purgatory. The regathering of ancient practices that keep us connected with the church through the ages. The renewed sacramental understanding of the life of the church. Regaining a value for "sacred tradition" as opposed to "sola scriptura." And of course, the great mystical renewal - moving away from rationality and toward mysticism in our inward spirituality - drawing from the great monastic traditions in the Catholic Church over the ages. That's not an exhaustive list by any means. I mean, I'm seeing these things come around and it makes me think that it will be interesting to see how many of these people end up converting to Catholicism in the next 20 years. Maybe, maybe not. I told a friend of mine not long ago that at this point in my theology and spiritual life, the only thing that keeps me from going back into the Catholic Church is the issue of hierarchy - the strict authority structure. I just don't see it as legitimate. So much positive though. What do you think? Are you a "used to be" Catholic? Why? Do you see these trends? I don't want arguments here - just interested in what people think, especially if you're in this whole emerging scene and/or were Catholic at one time. Peace to all in this house.

quote for today

you may recall the little Solzhenitsyn kick a month or so ago. here's a pretty little quote from him. i'm not sure he's right, but it's an interesting point. Spiritual Blaze by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. From his commencement address at Harvard in 1978. "If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern Era...No one on earth has any other way left butóupwards."

worship lyrics

Our F¸hrer "There are so many people who bless you, Even if their blessing is a silent one ó There are so many who have never met you, And yet you are their Savior. † When you speak to your German people, The words go across the land And sink into countless hearts, Hearts in which your image long has stood. † Sometimes the vision of you brings life To those in the midst of hard labor and heavy obligation ... So many are devoted to you And seek in your spirit a clear light." ____ It's strange to hear how much these poems published by the Austrian Hitler Youth in 1939 sound like contemporary worship songs.... This thought is your "thinking piece" for the day :)

Cultural Context for Engagement

This is a summary of the intro to a sort of anthology of cultural engagement writers that I'm reading for class right now. I thought it was a good "big" picture summary for question and discussion for our class and thought I'd throw some hightlights on the blog. Hope it's not too long... (E, interesting how much his article resonates with your comments on superficiality... I'd love to flesh that out some more!) "Tolerance is thought of by many as of greater importance than judging a person's character, no matter how defective a given person's character may be... As a secular principle, it is essentially theological in character in the minds of those who most readily invoke it... "Deconstructionism of the postmodern Left... contests the very premise that there are universal standards... with the result that morality is striclty personal and private... "On the cultural Right... there is a growing tendency to withdraw... Among religious conservatives especially there is a deeply pessimistic outlook that views culture as... beyond redemption. The only answer these skeptics assert is withdrawing entirely... into moral enclaves... "...[but] in the American system of ordered liberty, democracy is dependent for its health upon conditions that are more or less social or cultural in nature... The Founding Fathers conceived of a system consisting of three spheres: the politicalor law-making sector, the economic sector, and the socio-cultural sector... "Culture is our souls' writ large; it mirrors what we value and love... If the purpose of culture is order and govern our lives in accordance with broadly shared values, then our culture no longer functions as a culture. Its purpose is no longer to order, but to grant emancipation from the very idea of moral norms... When we talk of cultural failure, it is usually in reference to the loss of this norm-setting function... "...[people argue that every generation rebels against the former generation, that cultural relativism is just the newest way]... But this kind of reasoning, while partly sound, only encourages... a sense of futility among those who seek to [engage]... Ironically, this cultural relativism leaves kids with fewer and fewer socially harmless ways to challenge the status quo represented by their parents... Is it possible that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) turned to fascination with Hitler and death because nothing else socially provocative enough for them to build an identity around remained? "...[popular culture's senselessness]...Cicero captured it this way: 'If we are forced at every hour, to watch or listen to horrible events, this constant stream of ghastly impressions will deprive even the most delicate among us of all respect for humanity'... 'complacent nihilism' is not the ingredient of a healthy culture... Cultural critic Eugene Peterson says that 'the enormous entertainment industry in our land is a sign of the depletion of joy in our culture... Gone is our own imagination, our individual creativity or our gifts of service to the world, our willingness to defend our system... instead we buy the vitality of another's imagination to divert and enliven our own poor lives'..." "Conventional moral norms, indeed the very idea of a norm, imply certain boundaries in the public realm where our common life is developed. Cultural nihilism, operating in the service of individual emancipation, necessarily destroys these boundaries between the public and the private... Gurstein argues that modern expressive liberalism has broken down because it can no longer discriminate between the essential circulation of ideas, which is the cornerstone of liberal democracy, and the commercial exploitation of news, entertainment, and sex as commodities... it can no longer distinguish between the expression of unorthodox ideas in the pursuit of truth, which is the lifeblood of art, and the desire to publicize anything that springs to the mind in the name or artistic genius..." "The alternative to cultural protest, super-parenting, and a host of other 'demand side' measures is cultural recovery, advanced through movements aimed at permeation, replacement, and renewal... Yes, private responsibility on the part of consummers will matter... and families will play an important role in pushing back against the power of popular culture... We need big ideas as well as specific plans... built on words of analysis, challenge, and hope." ~ Summary of the Introduction, "Moral and Intellectual Framework" pp 1-38 Don Eberly, Building a Healthy Culture (collection of about fifty essays on cultural engagement)

brdfrd reappears!

good stuff! i wish i could comment on all of it, but having not been at work for 1.5 days, i'm kinda busy. however, i'll throw down some stuff now and maybe some more later after i've had some time to digest. "Firsthand experiences and pleasures are personal and unmediated. No one, in the name of progress, will take away from you the experience of lying on a beach, walking in the woods, sitting in a comedy club, or shopping at a flea market. But firsthand experiences aren't' always rewarding. For example, waiting in line is a firsthand experience, but we have been trying to invent ways to avoid it ever since we first queued up." I think the thing that scares me about this, like cloning, etc., is the subjectivity of phrases like "aren't always rewarding" versus the permanence of phrases like "take away from you." There may be some who would argue that lying on a beach isn't as rewarding as standing in a line. That sounds ridiculous, but I think it's always important to remember that, while choices about what is and isn't "rewarding" in the present (e.g., discipline doesn't feel to rewarding now but is over the long term) where we are myopic anyway, technological "giving and taking away" can be both socially and materially permanent. Bill Gates (like the Alphas in Brave New World) may be able to give us what we want--but at the expense of taking what we need. "Where else could they turn? How far off the mark might it be to simply say that the postmodern condition is essentially post-personal and that's why we irrationally personalize everything...?" To me, politics seems just another realm of the specialist. Though I disagree with much of what he says, Michael Moore seems to be bringing the concept of democracy, self-rule, issues-oriented versus entertainment politics (a la Aaahnooold) back. His tactics are a little weird and intrusive sometimes and perhaps focus more on him than the problems at hand. But he is concerned with social justice and is pushing that into the face of the specialist politicians--liberal as well as conservative. When it comes down to it, our problem is superficiality more than almost anything. We care, and do, too little as a nation. We think too little; we talk too much; when we do think, we think about how to make ourselves richer. That post-personalism seems just another symptom of the deeper evil of superficiality

Some thoughts for the void

Hey all, Sorry I've been so "absent" in the last month or so. It's exciting all that has been talked about and all that you guys are doing. I'm tempted to feel very boring. I don't know when the next time I'll be able to sign on will be, though we're working on getting my comuter working from home, and if that gets going, it won't be very long. In the mean time, I'll throw a couple thoughts into the "void" and see if they ever landed sometime when I get back. Reading the Michael Moore quotes made me think how interesting it is that we are so "needy" to be liberal and conservative in politics (in general?) these days. I'm sure that's nothing new, but in a day and age when the lines between genders, sexualities, truth/falsities, first and second hand experiences, and reality and unreality are annihilated (all the personal areas from which we may have identity), is the impersonal, political sphere going to end up a sort of unrealistic "last bastion" for potential necessary distinctions in our identity? Where else could they turn? How far off the mark might it be to simply say that the postmodern condition is essentially post-personal and that's why we irrationally personalize everything...?

from chapter 1, "A Revolution Begins"

"There will be a day, not far distant, when you will be able to conduct business, study, explore the world and its cultures, call up any great entertainment, make friends, attend neighborhood markets, and show pictures to distant relatives - without leaving your desk or armchair. You won't leave your network connection behind at the office or in the classrooom. it will be more than an object you carry or an appliance you purchase. It will be your passport into a new, mediated way of life. Firsthand experiences and pleasures are personal and unmediated. No one, in the name of progress, will take away from you the experience of lying on a beach, walking in the woods, sitting in a comedy club, or shopping at a flea market. But firsthand experiences arent' always rewarding. For example, waiting in line is a firsthand experience, but we have been trying to invent ways to avoid it ever since we first queued up." ~ Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1995 p.5 The implications of this are terrifying...

On Personal Statements and Pancakes

Dude, I really like the personal statement. I especially like your five questions. Your five questions are the nuts and bolts of it. I like the way they seem to be the climax of your other statements and as such kinda linger in your mind and keep coming up after reading them in the morning, like a profound burp after an excellent breakfast. Mmmm... Seriously, though, I like how the questions are first of all, interelated and as such build on each other. That makes each succeeding one more potent and leaves me with a feeling of solidarity about the questions as a unit. You can tell you've put time and thought into constructing them. And secondly, I like the way they take relevant, cross-disciplinary questions, and focus them into the context that you're going to be specializing in. Questions about first causes and objectivity (#1,2), meaning and presuppostitions (#3,4), and their applications for community (#5) are at the root of what we're all about. And the things you are gifted to discover in God's grace to you and through in these areas are going to be blessings far beyond the specific context of Philosophy of Science. It makes me excited! Outside of the questions themselves, I like the way the statement feels informal and personal, yet with an obvious demonstration of academic credibility and potential. Good choices on the book titles too. I like Meesh's comments and your responses... in fact, I would add to the #4 comment of hers to just go ahead and take out the parenthetical statement altogether. You make it contingent with the "perhaps" lead in. Doubling it with the parentheses somehow unjustly displays a "lack of confidence". I checked on some Doctoral Adminstration website to see generally what a person should include in personal statement, but my notes are clogged somewhere in this stupid computer for the moment, so I can't include them. Basically, they told me that you touched on exactly what people want to see in a personal statement: personal background, goals, how those work together for being at their program, dispaly academic credibility and literary capability, etc... I'd say you confidently receive a big "rock on", man! Overall: Delicious!

Sorry you're feeling sick, but...

Suck for sickness, man. But as I'm sitting here thinking about it, you just brought up a great band name: Flu Boy and the Therapeutics!