A blogging note, I have been keeping Right2Leftists updated more now.
Update,
I wrote over there instead of here today.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Progressives and Marriage
"Tendencies fostered by the modern social organism are injuring the race, in the opinion of Prof. Keller, and invite a natural retribution....
War itself, once a valuable selective agency, exposes the strongest and the fleetest to the bomb and the bullet, to the diseases and temptations of military service, to irregular habits, delayed marriage, and diminished families. The confinements of the industrial organization kill off the biologically fitter.
....Even the development of medicine, hygiene, and dietetics rears to maturity fathers of weakly families who might have fallen early beneath the scythe of natural selection.
....a new set of marriage taboos may gain vogue for the production of a race of superior beings."
(Folk Ways and Eugenics
The New York Times; Aug 14, 1908 pg. 6)
It seems to me that the progressive university professors (in that case, one from Yale) and the like have always had a certain tendency, a tendency based on Naturalism to undermine traditional marriage. It is so common that one might almost think that there was some ancient covenant based on marriage at issue. The progressive eugenics movement wanted to create a "...new set of marriage taboos..." then, and progressives now would exchange venerated tradition and valid taboos for same-sex marriage based on the latest pseudo-scientific nonsense. The other day I was thinking, since SSM seems to be such "The Issue" for them at this point ins history, that which brings ought the censorious side of Leftist bigots, that it would be easy to just avoid it. I have been censored off of two Leftist blogs based on this issue. But I think it was Luther who said that one can support all the points of the truth, except that one which is the one currently under attack, and so be lending a tacit support to evil. It is an evil to purposefully deny children their father/fathering and mother/mothering just to support the latest pseudo-scientific vogue of "progressives." What "progress" they seem to want to make in denial of Romance, Covenant and millenia of moral teachings. These progressives seem more like regressives, preaching a reversion to subpagan hedonism (the modern SSM) or tribalism (the old Eugenics). Each one is the issue of the day, in its time. Yet how quickly Eugenics is to be forgotten in exchange for the latest regressive vogue.
War itself, once a valuable selective agency, exposes the strongest and the fleetest to the bomb and the bullet, to the diseases and temptations of military service, to irregular habits, delayed marriage, and diminished families. The confinements of the industrial organization kill off the biologically fitter.
....Even the development of medicine, hygiene, and dietetics rears to maturity fathers of weakly families who might have fallen early beneath the scythe of natural selection.
....a new set of marriage taboos may gain vogue for the production of a race of superior beings."
(Folk Ways and Eugenics
The New York Times; Aug 14, 1908 pg. 6)
It seems to me that the progressive university professors (in that case, one from Yale) and the like have always had a certain tendency, a tendency based on Naturalism to undermine traditional marriage. It is so common that one might almost think that there was some ancient covenant based on marriage at issue. The progressive eugenics movement wanted to create a "...new set of marriage taboos..." then, and progressives now would exchange venerated tradition and valid taboos for same-sex marriage based on the latest pseudo-scientific nonsense. The other day I was thinking, since SSM seems to be such "The Issue" for them at this point ins history, that which brings ought the censorious side of Leftist bigots, that it would be easy to just avoid it. I have been censored off of two Leftist blogs based on this issue. But I think it was Luther who said that one can support all the points of the truth, except that one which is the one currently under attack, and so be lending a tacit support to evil. It is an evil to purposefully deny children their father/fathering and mother/mothering just to support the latest pseudo-scientific vogue of "progressives." What "progress" they seem to want to make in denial of Romance, Covenant and millenia of moral teachings. These progressives seem more like regressives, preaching a reversion to subpagan hedonism (the modern SSM) or tribalism (the old Eugenics). Each one is the issue of the day, in its time. Yet how quickly Eugenics is to be forgotten in exchange for the latest regressive vogue.
Men and Women...
Karl Kraus,
"At some time in the world there must have been an immaculate conception of voluptuousness!"
"He forced her to do her bidding."
(Karl Kraus, Half-Truths and
One-and-a-Half-Truths :103, 106)
Nietzsche,
"After a quarrel between a man and a woman, one suffers most at the idea of having hurt the other, while the other suffers most at the idea of not having hurt the other enough, from which follow the tears, sobs and distracted mien through which the heart of the other is to be made heavy even after the quarrel is over."
(Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (Cambridge U. Press: 1996) Translated by R.J. Hollingdale :155-156)
"At some time in the world there must have been an immaculate conception of voluptuousness!"
"He forced her to do her bidding."
(Karl Kraus, Half-Truths and
One-and-a-Half-Truths :103, 106)
Nietzsche,
"After a quarrel between a man and a woman, one suffers most at the idea of having hurt the other, while the other suffers most at the idea of not having hurt the other enough, from which follow the tears, sobs and distracted mien through which the heart of the other is to be made heavy even after the quarrel is over."
(Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (Cambridge U. Press: 1996) Translated by R.J. Hollingdale :155-156)
That's annoying...a little about the radio and technology.
...the radio station I usually listen to was broadcast over by some new hip-hop station. So now most of what is on it is 50Cent saying he likes women like a fat kid likes cake, take him to the candy shop, he wishes he had mint now, etc. It's all quite the masterful use of metaphors. The depth is amazing: "Me like candy." "Me no like not having candy."
But anyway, beginning to criticize one genre or another is not the point of this post. The point is that radio is still running on 1950s technology thanks to the government. The bandwidth being used could actually trasmit about eight more stations, or even more, if the bits were used more efficiently. With respect to radio, the government is like a protectionist system for the polluters or the gas guzzlers of the Information Age. I.e., those who make terribly inefficient use of broadcast bandwidth, the natural resource being used. I'll try to explain things for the non-technical, if you are still bothering to read this. This one is probably for geeks.
bandwidth is:
1 : a range within a band of wavelengths, frequencies, or energies; especially : a range of radio frequencies which is occupied by a modulated carrier wave, which is assigned to a service, or over which a device can operate
As far as radio, the bandwidth involved is a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum being used and misused. Misused because the situation with respect to broadcasting on the spectrum is analogous to people being in a room of limited space all trying to shout over each other instead of modulating their tone and voice so that each one can be heard and have a conversation. Thus, now there is a new hip-hop station here instead of the other station. The government helps to sponsor the situation because it auctions off the spectrum in blocks based on 1950s technology, there is no incentive to use it more efficiently with new technologies. One technology that most people have at least heard of is MP3. That is a rather old audio technology originally developed by the Fraunhoffer institute. It's a codec, a coding/decoding algorithm. It works in pretty simple ways by removing portions of the audio that are in inaudible regions of its spectrum, at least to the human ear. That alone saves a lot of space. Then it also uses psycho-acoustic masking tricks like useing less bits for a high portion of the audio while there is a booming bass part. If all goes well you will never hear the difference. But if there is not enough bitrate to use then you may hear a warble or "flanging" in the high portions.
If there was any incentive for an efficient use of bandwidth in the case of radio then such algorithms and codecs could be used.
"....using digital signal processors, a radio can be made to disassemble a stream of data fed into it from a source. It can be made to do this right down to the sub-byte level - bundle it into tiny packets of data, and transmit those packets in short bursts in random ways over a wide range of frequencies. . . .
This can be done at low levels of power, while a corresponding radio at the other end, using the same proprietary algorithms used by the first radio, can capture and
analyze those packets, re-assemble them perfectly, and feed them into a receiving system or network.
Secondly, error-correcting techniques possible for digital signaling can even deal robustly with the interference that does occur. If a great deal of interference occurs, the usual effect is the slowing down (from retrying to get the signal through perfectly) of the rate of data exchange, not its complete failure. . . . .
In other words, spread spectrum, using frequency hopping techniques can co-exist with other radios using the same frequencies or bands. In fact there can be 'spectrum sharing' to such a degree that it is no longer necessary for the FCC to award licenses to just one transmitting entity operating in an area. There still have
to be rules, of course, but very different rules, for this new era of digital radio."
(David R. Hughes, The Case for Shared
Wireless Public Spectrum)
Inefficiency and waste becomes important politically because Leftists tend to favor something called the "fairness doctrine." Because the resource is supposedly scarce (And thanks to the governments way of auctioning it off, it probably always will be "scarce.") we have to be "fair" in its usage. In other words, what you talk about is going to be policed.
Instead of efficiency, here is what we have. An analogy using the natural resource of audible airtime:
"You are at a crowded party. As is typical of parties, many people are carrying on conversations at once, and the air is full of noise. In fact, you are having trouble hearing what other people are saying due to the din. Suddenly, the door opens,
and several federal agents appear, badges in hand. "Your attention please," their leader says sternly. "Because so many people are talking too loud, causing others to have trouble hearing their own conversations, the newly-established Federal Speech Commission will now exercise its plenary authority to regulate conversations. Since some of you are having trouble hearing each other, we decree that in order for anyone to have a conversation for the rest of the night, you must first get our permission--and we will base our permission on whether you can convince us that your planned conversational topic is indeed worthy of discussion (after all, sound waves are scarce, and we wouldn't want anyone wasting perfectly good sound waves on chit-chat). Furthermore, we will not allow any improper language, and we would appreciate your efforts to talk about serious subjects such as philosophy, politics or foreign affairs. Thank you for your attention, and you can begin lining up to get permission to talk."
As time went on, everyone got accustomed to the Federal Speech Commission, and its officious regulation of any and all party conversations. Before long, however, a few people had a bright idea. Instead of having the FSC representatives decide on who got to speak and when, why not allow the people themselves to decide as long as they bought the right to do so? That is, let the FSC sell off the right to speak at parties, and whoever wanted most to speak could simply bid the highest. It would make money for the government, and would encourage economic efficiency. It also seemed like a step towards personal freedom.
Of course, since sound waves were scarce, and since the FSC still had authority to regulate and allocate the right to talk, it would be necessary to have restrictions on the subjects that could be discussed, or the language that could be used, or on the number of talkers allowed at any one time. And despite the FSC's admirable purpose, something seemed faintly amiss about the government selling the right to speak, whether at parties or elsewhere. No one ever seemed to consider how it was that the government could claim the right to sell speakers' licenses in the first place. Nevertheless, the auction idea took off, and the FSC busied itself with raising exorbitant amounts of money thereby."
(Leland Stanford Junior University
Stanford Technology Law Review
2002 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 2
Replacing Spectrum Auctions with a Spectrum Commons
Stuart Buck)
To the non-techies, I apologize...anyhow, those are some of the reasons that one radio station is broadcasting over another one.
But anyway, beginning to criticize one genre or another is not the point of this post. The point is that radio is still running on 1950s technology thanks to the government. The bandwidth being used could actually trasmit about eight more stations, or even more, if the bits were used more efficiently. With respect to radio, the government is like a protectionist system for the polluters or the gas guzzlers of the Information Age. I.e., those who make terribly inefficient use of broadcast bandwidth, the natural resource being used. I'll try to explain things for the non-technical, if you are still bothering to read this. This one is probably for geeks.
bandwidth is:
1 : a range within a band of wavelengths, frequencies, or energies; especially : a range of radio frequencies which is occupied by a modulated carrier wave, which is assigned to a service, or over which a device can operate
As far as radio, the bandwidth involved is a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum being used and misused. Misused because the situation with respect to broadcasting on the spectrum is analogous to people being in a room of limited space all trying to shout over each other instead of modulating their tone and voice so that each one can be heard and have a conversation. Thus, now there is a new hip-hop station here instead of the other station. The government helps to sponsor the situation because it auctions off the spectrum in blocks based on 1950s technology, there is no incentive to use it more efficiently with new technologies. One technology that most people have at least heard of is MP3. That is a rather old audio technology originally developed by the Fraunhoffer institute. It's a codec, a coding/decoding algorithm. It works in pretty simple ways by removing portions of the audio that are in inaudible regions of its spectrum, at least to the human ear. That alone saves a lot of space. Then it also uses psycho-acoustic masking tricks like useing less bits for a high portion of the audio while there is a booming bass part. If all goes well you will never hear the difference. But if there is not enough bitrate to use then you may hear a warble or "flanging" in the high portions.
If there was any incentive for an efficient use of bandwidth in the case of radio then such algorithms and codecs could be used.
"....using digital signal processors, a radio can be made to disassemble a stream of data fed into it from a source. It can be made to do this right down to the sub-byte level - bundle it into tiny packets of data, and transmit those packets in short bursts in random ways over a wide range of frequencies. . . .
This can be done at low levels of power, while a corresponding radio at the other end, using the same proprietary algorithms used by the first radio, can capture and
analyze those packets, re-assemble them perfectly, and feed them into a receiving system or network.
Secondly, error-correcting techniques possible for digital signaling can even deal robustly with the interference that does occur. If a great deal of interference occurs, the usual effect is the slowing down (from retrying to get the signal through perfectly) of the rate of data exchange, not its complete failure. . . . .
In other words, spread spectrum, using frequency hopping techniques can co-exist with other radios using the same frequencies or bands. In fact there can be 'spectrum sharing' to such a degree that it is no longer necessary for the FCC to award licenses to just one transmitting entity operating in an area. There still have
to be rules, of course, but very different rules, for this new era of digital radio."
(David R. Hughes, The Case for Shared
Wireless Public Spectrum)
Inefficiency and waste becomes important politically because Leftists tend to favor something called the "fairness doctrine." Because the resource is supposedly scarce (And thanks to the governments way of auctioning it off, it probably always will be "scarce.") we have to be "fair" in its usage. In other words, what you talk about is going to be policed.
Instead of efficiency, here is what we have. An analogy using the natural resource of audible airtime:
"You are at a crowded party. As is typical of parties, many people are carrying on conversations at once, and the air is full of noise. In fact, you are having trouble hearing what other people are saying due to the din. Suddenly, the door opens,
and several federal agents appear, badges in hand. "Your attention please," their leader says sternly. "Because so many people are talking too loud, causing others to have trouble hearing their own conversations, the newly-established Federal Speech Commission will now exercise its plenary authority to regulate conversations. Since some of you are having trouble hearing each other, we decree that in order for anyone to have a conversation for the rest of the night, you must first get our permission--and we will base our permission on whether you can convince us that your planned conversational topic is indeed worthy of discussion (after all, sound waves are scarce, and we wouldn't want anyone wasting perfectly good sound waves on chit-chat). Furthermore, we will not allow any improper language, and we would appreciate your efforts to talk about serious subjects such as philosophy, politics or foreign affairs. Thank you for your attention, and you can begin lining up to get permission to talk."
As time went on, everyone got accustomed to the Federal Speech Commission, and its officious regulation of any and all party conversations. Before long, however, a few people had a bright idea. Instead of having the FSC representatives decide on who got to speak and when, why not allow the people themselves to decide as long as they bought the right to do so? That is, let the FSC sell off the right to speak at parties, and whoever wanted most to speak could simply bid the highest. It would make money for the government, and would encourage economic efficiency. It also seemed like a step towards personal freedom.
Of course, since sound waves were scarce, and since the FSC still had authority to regulate and allocate the right to talk, it would be necessary to have restrictions on the subjects that could be discussed, or the language that could be used, or on the number of talkers allowed at any one time. And despite the FSC's admirable purpose, something seemed faintly amiss about the government selling the right to speak, whether at parties or elsewhere. No one ever seemed to consider how it was that the government could claim the right to sell speakers' licenses in the first place. Nevertheless, the auction idea took off, and the FSC busied itself with raising exorbitant amounts of money thereby."
(Leland Stanford Junior University
Stanford Technology Law Review
2002 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 2
Replacing Spectrum Auctions with a Spectrum Commons
Stuart Buck)
To the non-techies, I apologize...anyhow, those are some of the reasons that one radio station is broadcasting over another one.
Friday, February 25, 2005
The Story of the Atheist, Continued...
Continuing...
"...information is invisible."
"Yes, it is only a formation that is the visible manifestation of information. I think that is the difference between sight and insight as well. In some sense, it seems that some people have insight and others do not. The other day an agnostic sort of fellow who apparently could not refute a bit of something I wrote, wrote back to me, 'Just because you can put something together in a string of words does not make it true.' First thing, why did he bother to write that string of words? Are they untrue? I think that some people have a rebellious will, is all. And so the truth can be represented to them in something as plain as the schematics of mathematics and yet they would seek to deny it, even as they refute themselves in their own denials. As to that fellow, I doubt he would deny the important truths represented by strings of symbols, signs and code if his own genetic code was at issue. His own information that has to do with his own formation, DNA. Again, it is like any relativist who do not and cannot live by their own denials of basic self-evident truths, evident in the Self. That is why they keep refuting their Selves. Yet the denial itself is revealing."
"But....information isn't really invisible, as God supposedly is. I suppose you believe it exists when it is not manifested or information takes a 'formation' as you put it. But I think that formation, that we observe, is all that is. You see, it's simple, existence is. So I'll believe in God when he takes 'form' and comes to dinner."
"I suppose it is too bad you did not live at a certain times when the Bible says that God took form."
"I don't believe in the Bible...oh, right. Okay, so the Bible says it and you like to refer to the Bible as such, instead of our own beliefs about it. The text does say that, but that does not mean that it is true."
"I don't know that you ought to believe that any text or code at all is true to maintain a consistent existential philosophy. You see, text almost crosses the line with all its tittles and jots to being the nonphysical information. It's the same with the schematics of mathematics. I'm not saying that such code actually does cross that line, as obviously it still has its physical manifestation on paper, patterns of pixels on a screen and so on. Yet it is getting pretty close. And your sort of existential focus on our current existence in a denial of the essential seems to reduce libraries down to what is, a you put it. In other words, books are reduced to wood pulp with some markings on them. Unfortunately, there are not words to put into other words if that is the case. The pattern or design of the marks, what of it? The physical is existence..."
"I suppose I do believe in some of the 'essential,' as you put it. I'm not prepared to run off into some Platonic world of the Forms, though. Yet yes, I do believe that information is invisible and only formation the visible, as you have been arguing. So I agree with what some of what you would call the essential, a sort of unseen essence that is nonphysical. Am I supposed to call that God? Is that theism? That's not theism. Besides that, my empirically based criticism and demand for observation remains because we must use the visible formation to judge information. Come to think of it, that's the point of science. So you can see why I would note that God ought to come to dinner, then by observation I could know."
(I will continue this, maybe later today. But if someone wants to hop in and help the theist here before I write some more dialogue, go ahead and give it a go.)
Perhaps the theist says,
"Maybe, you do not exist in the way you think you do. Perhaps I am a superior being and you are just a rhetorical device being used by my own more infinite mind to communicate to others of my superior kind. So you are just my words to them. That's why I created you."
"What?! What empirical observations can you make to support your claim? Hmmm?"
"Well, I suppose I could say to my own rhetorical device, 'Dance my atheist, dance!'"
"What the....? I, uh...why am I dancing?! Something is not right here!"
"Dance...and now, prance! I think I will keep you around, as you're quite an entertaining fellow!"
"...information is invisible."
"Yes, it is only a formation that is the visible manifestation of information. I think that is the difference between sight and insight as well. In some sense, it seems that some people have insight and others do not. The other day an agnostic sort of fellow who apparently could not refute a bit of something I wrote, wrote back to me, 'Just because you can put something together in a string of words does not make it true.' First thing, why did he bother to write that string of words? Are they untrue? I think that some people have a rebellious will, is all. And so the truth can be represented to them in something as plain as the schematics of mathematics and yet they would seek to deny it, even as they refute themselves in their own denials. As to that fellow, I doubt he would deny the important truths represented by strings of symbols, signs and code if his own genetic code was at issue. His own information that has to do with his own formation, DNA. Again, it is like any relativist who do not and cannot live by their own denials of basic self-evident truths, evident in the Self. That is why they keep refuting their Selves. Yet the denial itself is revealing."
"But....information isn't really invisible, as God supposedly is. I suppose you believe it exists when it is not manifested or information takes a 'formation' as you put it. But I think that formation, that we observe, is all that is. You see, it's simple, existence is. So I'll believe in God when he takes 'form' and comes to dinner."
"I suppose it is too bad you did not live at a certain times when the Bible says that God took form."
"I don't believe in the Bible...oh, right. Okay, so the Bible says it and you like to refer to the Bible as such, instead of our own beliefs about it. The text does say that, but that does not mean that it is true."
"I don't know that you ought to believe that any text or code at all is true to maintain a consistent existential philosophy. You see, text almost crosses the line with all its tittles and jots to being the nonphysical information. It's the same with the schematics of mathematics. I'm not saying that such code actually does cross that line, as obviously it still has its physical manifestation on paper, patterns of pixels on a screen and so on. Yet it is getting pretty close. And your sort of existential focus on our current existence in a denial of the essential seems to reduce libraries down to what is, a you put it. In other words, books are reduced to wood pulp with some markings on them. Unfortunately, there are not words to put into other words if that is the case. The pattern or design of the marks, what of it? The physical is existence..."
"I suppose I do believe in some of the 'essential,' as you put it. I'm not prepared to run off into some Platonic world of the Forms, though. Yet yes, I do believe that information is invisible and only formation the visible, as you have been arguing. So I agree with what some of what you would call the essential, a sort of unseen essence that is nonphysical. Am I supposed to call that God? Is that theism? That's not theism. Besides that, my empirically based criticism and demand for observation remains because we must use the visible formation to judge information. Come to think of it, that's the point of science. So you can see why I would note that God ought to come to dinner, then by observation I could know."
(I will continue this, maybe later today. But if someone wants to hop in and help the theist here before I write some more dialogue, go ahead and give it a go.)
Perhaps the theist says,
"Maybe, you do not exist in the way you think you do. Perhaps I am a superior being and you are just a rhetorical device being used by my own more infinite mind to communicate to others of my superior kind. So you are just my words to them. That's why I created you."
"What?! What empirical observations can you make to support your claim? Hmmm?"
"Well, I suppose I could say to my own rhetorical device, 'Dance my atheist, dance!'"
"What the....? I, uh...why am I dancing?! Something is not right here!"
"Dance...and now, prance! I think I will keep you around, as you're quite an entertaining fellow!"
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
A continuing dialogue...
Continued...
The first man laughed and said, "So do you blame Santa when he does not bring you gifts on Christmas. Do you shake your fist at the sky and shout, 'Why Santa, why?!'"
"Yeah, yeah....I already said I must've picked up some theistic assumptions from the culture. I could still say that I'm just holding you to your theistic philosophy and challenging you on why evil exists. But you already gave your answer and I already corrected my assumption, so let's not go back over it. As I said, I would not assume that Santa exists any more than I would assume God exists. Besides, it's not my fault that my culture is theistic. I bet if it was Santa-istic I might begin to assume Santa's existence too and blame him for not coming down from the sky with gifts. Hmmm?"
"Actually, there was a saint Nicholas who is historical. You deny his existence?"
"What the...? Sheesh, alright then, I don't believe in God like I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. They're both just a fairytale meant to make people feel good."
"Actually....just kidding, has anyone made a serious claim to be the Easter Bunny? What are the attributes of the Easter Bunny and do they match or support any basic logic or observations? "
"....hold on, hold on. Alright, let's just drop the Bunny. The main thing is that God is invisible and further, there are a lot of myths on the issue, like the Bunny. It's just a story that people make up about invisible things. Then you cannot verify their fairytales. It's all just made up. That's all."
"I wonder if we might need some fairytale in our lives. But alright, so your main point is that God is invisible and stories can be written, created, just made up. There is a lot to be said about all this. I think this bit about the invisible is important. It's important to note that according to the Bible God has typically been invisible."
"I don't believe in the Bible."
"I'm not talking about what you believe."
"Well I.... Oh."
"Another thing to note is that information itself is invisible. In fact, it seems that it is not physical. For instance, you can store information in the physical. Yet it does not matter how you do so, the information can be the same regardless its mode of transport or expression. Thanks to information theory and key insights about this we live in a computer age in which information can be transmitted in numerous physical ways. Yet information itself does not seem to be physical. Would you agree that it seems to be nonphysical?"
"Maybe...but we still have to observe it to really know it exists. That means we would have to see it in the visible, the physical. Yeah, so I still say that is the way you know something exists. And God is supposedly 'invisible,' at least most of the time....how convenient!"
"So if God has a type of nonphysical existence (as indeed God would given that such a Creator would be responsible for the existence of the physical itself) you would wait until you could see their impact on the physical, i.e. the invisible becoming visible?"
"Well, I have to go with what can be observed. And it seems a bit convenient that God is invisible at a time when we can make more observations. Hmmm?"
"I think you may be overestimating some time-frames. If we look at the "fairytale" that you do not believe, God's activity or visibility in Nature has been quite short, with very long stretches of total invisibility. In fact, such spurts of activity have been in dealing with very few people in the over all perspective. For instance, it seems that you have Moses and a few others who see the invisible become visible. They write the text of the whole Old Testament. It's interesting to note that light is the best physical conduit of information. Then there is Jesus and the one who writes most of the text of the New Testament, Paul, also sees the light. These people who see the light seem to write a lot of the text that is supposed to be as testaments to us."
"Well, like I said, I don't believe the Bible. And you say you're not talking about what I blelieve. Okay, fine, so you're looking at the Bible and its claims."
"Yes, it's like when you began to talk about pluralism. That didn't have much to do with anything I was saying. And your lack of belief in the Bible also does not matter when it comes to looking at the text. I mean no offense, but you seem to use your own beliefs to control the conversation."
"Maybe, but you do too. I mean, you're telling me things as if it is so."
"It is so, as far as what is written and the facts about things. I do not need to shift the conversation away to my own personal beliefs about it. But if you are going to shift into your own personal beliefs quite a bit and are going to say what you believe about it, say you believe it to be fairytale and so on, then you ought to know what it is."
"Well, I thought this was about my own personal beliefs."
"I thought it was about whether God exists."
"Yeah, and that's my personal belief."
"There is something holding you back, relativism and subjectivism. Let's try to focus on whether God exists and the facts we've been discussing, rather than your personal beliefs."
"I still feel that relativism may work, even if you say it is contradictory or that I can't and don't live by it. I mean, it sure is easy, that's for sure."
"Relativism is the easy way, that is true. But I'm not focused on your personal beliefs."
"Aren't you supposed to be trying to convince me though?"
"No, the truth can convince you or not. It's not up to me."
"Huh....some other theists I talk to just want to convince me and they care about what I believe. I think you ought to care about what I believe too."
"Why?"
"Well, I....didn't Jesus care what people believed?"
"He cared about the truth first."
"How can you say that? He cared about people first. So he cared about what they believed."
"No, not first....as I recall, he said things like do not cast your pearls before swine, if people do not believe then shake the dust from your feet and leave their town...."
"Alright, alright....so according to you, you do not have to focus on or care about what I believe."
"Yeah, the truth can convince you or you can remain unconvinced. That's not up to me. I leave it up to the truth. Besides, this way you can't keep putting yourself in the way, which is convenient."
"I find that a bit odd. But okay, you say that...."
(Is this worth continuing? It's getting long, longer than I thought.)
The first man laughed and said, "So do you blame Santa when he does not bring you gifts on Christmas. Do you shake your fist at the sky and shout, 'Why Santa, why?!'"
"Yeah, yeah....I already said I must've picked up some theistic assumptions from the culture. I could still say that I'm just holding you to your theistic philosophy and challenging you on why evil exists. But you already gave your answer and I already corrected my assumption, so let's not go back over it. As I said, I would not assume that Santa exists any more than I would assume God exists. Besides, it's not my fault that my culture is theistic. I bet if it was Santa-istic I might begin to assume Santa's existence too and blame him for not coming down from the sky with gifts. Hmmm?"
"Actually, there was a saint Nicholas who is historical. You deny his existence?"
"What the...? Sheesh, alright then, I don't believe in God like I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. They're both just a fairytale meant to make people feel good."
"Actually....just kidding, has anyone made a serious claim to be the Easter Bunny? What are the attributes of the Easter Bunny and do they match or support any basic logic or observations? "
"....hold on, hold on. Alright, let's just drop the Bunny. The main thing is that God is invisible and further, there are a lot of myths on the issue, like the Bunny. It's just a story that people make up about invisible things. Then you cannot verify their fairytales. It's all just made up. That's all."
"I wonder if we might need some fairytale in our lives. But alright, so your main point is that God is invisible and stories can be written, created, just made up. There is a lot to be said about all this. I think this bit about the invisible is important. It's important to note that according to the Bible God has typically been invisible."
"I don't believe in the Bible."
"I'm not talking about what you believe."
"Well I.... Oh."
"Another thing to note is that information itself is invisible. In fact, it seems that it is not physical. For instance, you can store information in the physical. Yet it does not matter how you do so, the information can be the same regardless its mode of transport or expression. Thanks to information theory and key insights about this we live in a computer age in which information can be transmitted in numerous physical ways. Yet information itself does not seem to be physical. Would you agree that it seems to be nonphysical?"
"Maybe...but we still have to observe it to really know it exists. That means we would have to see it in the visible, the physical. Yeah, so I still say that is the way you know something exists. And God is supposedly 'invisible,' at least most of the time....how convenient!"
"So if God has a type of nonphysical existence (as indeed God would given that such a Creator would be responsible for the existence of the physical itself) you would wait until you could see their impact on the physical, i.e. the invisible becoming visible?"
"Well, I have to go with what can be observed. And it seems a bit convenient that God is invisible at a time when we can make more observations. Hmmm?"
"I think you may be overestimating some time-frames. If we look at the "fairytale" that you do not believe, God's activity or visibility in Nature has been quite short, with very long stretches of total invisibility. In fact, such spurts of activity have been in dealing with very few people in the over all perspective. For instance, it seems that you have Moses and a few others who see the invisible become visible. They write the text of the whole Old Testament. It's interesting to note that light is the best physical conduit of information. Then there is Jesus and the one who writes most of the text of the New Testament, Paul, also sees the light. These people who see the light seem to write a lot of the text that is supposed to be as testaments to us."
"Well, like I said, I don't believe the Bible. And you say you're not talking about what I blelieve. Okay, fine, so you're looking at the Bible and its claims."
"Yes, it's like when you began to talk about pluralism. That didn't have much to do with anything I was saying. And your lack of belief in the Bible also does not matter when it comes to looking at the text. I mean no offense, but you seem to use your own beliefs to control the conversation."
"Maybe, but you do too. I mean, you're telling me things as if it is so."
"It is so, as far as what is written and the facts about things. I do not need to shift the conversation away to my own personal beliefs about it. But if you are going to shift into your own personal beliefs quite a bit and are going to say what you believe about it, say you believe it to be fairytale and so on, then you ought to know what it is."
"Well, I thought this was about my own personal beliefs."
"I thought it was about whether God exists."
"Yeah, and that's my personal belief."
"There is something holding you back, relativism and subjectivism. Let's try to focus on whether God exists and the facts we've been discussing, rather than your personal beliefs."
"I still feel that relativism may work, even if you say it is contradictory or that I can't and don't live by it. I mean, it sure is easy, that's for sure."
"Relativism is the easy way, that is true. But I'm not focused on your personal beliefs."
"Aren't you supposed to be trying to convince me though?"
"No, the truth can convince you or not. It's not up to me."
"Huh....some other theists I talk to just want to convince me and they care about what I believe. I think you ought to care about what I believe too."
"Why?"
"Well, I....didn't Jesus care what people believed?"
"He cared about the truth first."
"How can you say that? He cared about people first. So he cared about what they believed."
"No, not first....as I recall, he said things like do not cast your pearls before swine, if people do not believe then shake the dust from your feet and leave their town...."
"Alright, alright....so according to you, you do not have to focus on or care about what I believe."
"Yeah, the truth can convince you or you can remain unconvinced. That's not up to me. I leave it up to the truth. Besides, this way you can't keep putting yourself in the way, which is convenient."
"I find that a bit odd. But okay, you say that...."
(Is this worth continuing? It's getting long, longer than I thought.)
Monday, February 21, 2005
The parable of the atheist......
Continued...
(I guess I have to write dialogue myself!)
One evening, the two friends had another discussion over dinner and the atheist said to the theist, "I thought about our last discussion. I still blame God for letting evil things happen. And about what I said last, I do define what good is. I mean look, it's the same way that you define what is good for you too. It's just that what is good for you may not be good for me. So that's how I judge God. You can judge God your way and I'll judge my way."
So his friend replied, "I think I'll define that it is good for me to disagree with you about all that. That seems good, even if does not seem good to you."
"Well it isn't good, not in a pluralistic society."
"How did we just shift from God and evil to a pluralistic society?"
"Because, if people are intolerant then society will break down."
"I thought we were having a discussion about God between you and I. Are we going to have a social break down if I apply logic to the things you say."
"Well, we might...but okay, enough about pluralism, so you turned what I said back on me. I'll grant you that. But it doesn't really change my mind."
"I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to get to the truth. It's important to remember that you need to be able to live by your own philosophy, and a sound philosophy will have an integrity to it that you will be able to live by if it is turned back on you. Actually, you should be the first one willing to live by it. I.e., if someone said, 'I define my way of being good to be taking all your money now.' then you should reply, 'While I disagree, I respect what you define as good to you.' Obviously, you do not want me or anyone else to subjectively make up our own standards and begin to define what is good. After all, then I can say anything, as I did. And anyone else can say pretty much anything too, as if it is true."
"Alright, let's say that neither of us defines what good is. Like you say, it seems we can't just make it up or else we'll contradict ourselves. I don't quite understand how, but you seem to be able to make me contradict myself."
His friend broke in, "It's just relativism. That's the way it is. It's like setting words against themselves because it seeks a lack of judgment, yet words are all judgments.
"Well, since it is annoying to have my words turned back on me I guess I'll avoid that. But I still blame God for evil."
"The first point I was making about that view is, who is defining evil? It seems to me that evil can only be defined by the good, yet evil cannot define the good."
"Yeah, pretty much....well, I have the impluse to say that we define what the good is and that defines evil. But I know if I do then we'll be back on relativism. I still like that answer, even if I can't live by it. I wonder....if I could make it work. I'll think on it. But let's just say that Good and Evil exist, somehow, because we seem to know that they do. So then, I blame God for evil, as it exists. Because...he lets it exist. If we get relativism out of the way, that's what I've been saying all along! So there, that's what I'm saying."
"I think, in my opinion, that God lets evil exist for the sake of redemption, regeneration and to turn it against itself. This is the pattern of recycling and being born again that Nature speaks to in various ways. We all seem to have something in us too, that appreciates a pattern and a story of redemption rather than a boring sort of perfection. It seems, more than perfect. Any story of redemption calls for faith and hope, like that Rwandan mother I mentioned earlier. So I have faith."
"You may have a point. But I don't believe God exists. It wasn't really that I don't believe he exists because he lets evil exist, you know. It is more that I simply do not believe at all, no more than I believe in Santa Claus."
"Well, it certainly seemed like you assumed God's existence....just enough to blame him for evil, I suppose."
"Look, I'm living in a theistic culture. Some of its assumptions are bound to creep into me. I think you answered God letting evil exist as much as there is an answer. I'll think about it. I agree that we know such stories of redemption and that pattern or desire seems to be in us. But like you said, God being evil or letting evil exist is not truly an atheistic argument, even if atheists use it a lot. I just need to discard theistic assumptions I've picked up from the culture, is all. Instead, I don't believe in God at all, just like I don't believe in Santa at all."
(Done, for now...)
(I guess I have to write dialogue myself!)
One evening, the two friends had another discussion over dinner and the atheist said to the theist, "I thought about our last discussion. I still blame God for letting evil things happen. And about what I said last, I do define what good is. I mean look, it's the same way that you define what is good for you too. It's just that what is good for you may not be good for me. So that's how I judge God. You can judge God your way and I'll judge my way."
So his friend replied, "I think I'll define that it is good for me to disagree with you about all that. That seems good, even if does not seem good to you."
"Well it isn't good, not in a pluralistic society."
"How did we just shift from God and evil to a pluralistic society?"
"Because, if people are intolerant then society will break down."
"I thought we were having a discussion about God between you and I. Are we going to have a social break down if I apply logic to the things you say."
"Well, we might...but okay, enough about pluralism, so you turned what I said back on me. I'll grant you that. But it doesn't really change my mind."
"I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to get to the truth. It's important to remember that you need to be able to live by your own philosophy, and a sound philosophy will have an integrity to it that you will be able to live by if it is turned back on you. Actually, you should be the first one willing to live by it. I.e., if someone said, 'I define my way of being good to be taking all your money now.' then you should reply, 'While I disagree, I respect what you define as good to you.' Obviously, you do not want me or anyone else to subjectively make up our own standards and begin to define what is good. After all, then I can say anything, as I did. And anyone else can say pretty much anything too, as if it is true."
"Alright, let's say that neither of us defines what good is. Like you say, it seems we can't just make it up or else we'll contradict ourselves. I don't quite understand how, but you seem to be able to make me contradict myself."
His friend broke in, "It's just relativism. That's the way it is. It's like setting words against themselves because it seeks a lack of judgment, yet words are all judgments.
"Well, since it is annoying to have my words turned back on me I guess I'll avoid that. But I still blame God for evil."
"The first point I was making about that view is, who is defining evil? It seems to me that evil can only be defined by the good, yet evil cannot define the good."
"Yeah, pretty much....well, I have the impluse to say that we define what the good is and that defines evil. But I know if I do then we'll be back on relativism. I still like that answer, even if I can't live by it. I wonder....if I could make it work. I'll think on it. But let's just say that Good and Evil exist, somehow, because we seem to know that they do. So then, I blame God for evil, as it exists. Because...he lets it exist. If we get relativism out of the way, that's what I've been saying all along! So there, that's what I'm saying."
"I think, in my opinion, that God lets evil exist for the sake of redemption, regeneration and to turn it against itself. This is the pattern of recycling and being born again that Nature speaks to in various ways. We all seem to have something in us too, that appreciates a pattern and a story of redemption rather than a boring sort of perfection. It seems, more than perfect. Any story of redemption calls for faith and hope, like that Rwandan mother I mentioned earlier. So I have faith."
"You may have a point. But I don't believe God exists. It wasn't really that I don't believe he exists because he lets evil exist, you know. It is more that I simply do not believe at all, no more than I believe in Santa Claus."
"Well, it certainly seemed like you assumed God's existence....just enough to blame him for evil, I suppose."
"Look, I'm living in a theistic culture. Some of its assumptions are bound to creep into me. I think you answered God letting evil exist as much as there is an answer. I'll think about it. I agree that we know such stories of redemption and that pattern or desire seems to be in us. But like you said, God being evil or letting evil exist is not truly an atheistic argument, even if atheists use it a lot. I just need to discard theistic assumptions I've picked up from the culture, is all. Instead, I don't believe in God at all, just like I don't believe in Santa at all."
(Done, for now...)
More notes...
I've been wasting a bit of time at various blogs. Unforunately, I need to write here. I have updated Right2Left again. I'd probably write more if there was dialogue here.
To the person who found this blog by running a Yahoo search for, "Were the Nazis evil?"
Ummm, here's your answer: "Yeah."
To the person who found this blog by running a Yahoo search for, "Were the Nazis evil?"
Ummm, here's your answer: "Yeah."
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Blogging Notes...
I added Technorati search to the blog, which will be a convenience for me. Technorati also lets you search all blogs.
I have updated Right2Left some. It's not really serving its original purpose of going around Leftist censorship, which is fine. It's more of an archive of things instead, which is more interesting to me than the banalities of the Left anyway. There are some comments there that are probably a bit too "intellectual." But if you are one of those in-tellers who spins words around in your intellect to become more of an intellectual instead of chattering them away all the time, you may understand (agreeing or disagreeing).
The problem with the chattering of chit chat is that some chits are trying to be the chats and some chats, the chits. In that way there is less of a complementary and complimentary chit for chat, the tit for tat of this and that.
Anyway, I think I will extend the dialogue in the parable of the atheist in some new posts here next.
And maybe I will eventually write some theistic arguments in more "formal" terms for Ian. Or maybe not, I am careful of killing Life with some stifling formality. Life is not all a bunch of formulas or logic, after all. I remember my most "formal" philosophy class at the university. I was bored out of my mind. I've learned more from dialogue among people who are actually passionate about political philosophy (from the Right or the Left) than from such a deadly boring monologue about logic. Fortunately, there were other philosophy classes that were different.
I have updated Right2Left some. It's not really serving its original purpose of going around Leftist censorship, which is fine. It's more of an archive of things instead, which is more interesting to me than the banalities of the Left anyway. There are some comments there that are probably a bit too "intellectual." But if you are one of those in-tellers who spins words around in your intellect to become more of an intellectual instead of chattering them away all the time, you may understand (agreeing or disagreeing).
The problem with the chattering of chit chat is that some chits are trying to be the chats and some chats, the chits. In that way there is less of a complementary and complimentary chit for chat, the tit for tat of this and that.
Anyway, I think I will extend the dialogue in the parable of the atheist in some new posts here next.
And maybe I will eventually write some theistic arguments in more "formal" terms for Ian. Or maybe not, I am careful of killing Life with some stifling formality. Life is not all a bunch of formulas or logic, after all. I remember my most "formal" philosophy class at the university. I was bored out of my mind. I've learned more from dialogue among people who are actually passionate about political philosophy (from the Right or the Left) than from such a deadly boring monologue about logic. Fortunately, there were other philosophy classes that were different.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Iraqi Writers....
"There were amazing scenes; not very likely to [be] seen anywhere else. There were acts of heroism. Abdul Amir Kadhim, saw a man whom he suspected to be a suicide bomber, he threw himself on the man before he could get to the waiting line of people; and sure there was an explosion and this young man gave his life to save the others. Prime Minister Allawi paid tribute to this heroism. At one station there was a suicide attack and several people fell; when people of the neighborhood heard of this, the waiting line suddenly swelled to three times in size; people rushed out of their homes and came running to wait in line; it was their way to express their defiance and anger at this crime. The examples of bravery and courage are too numerous to recount."
The Messopotamian
"Yet we have been telling you this all along; we have been telling you ever since this blogging movement started. Do you now see that we were not representing minority views, that we were not some CIA agents trying to make propaganda?
I find it difficult right know to write coherently; I just want to convey to you some of the tremendous feelings overwhelming my soul now.
As for some of the Arab scum and other detractors, they are appearing on TV screens looking like they have just swallowed a cockroach, or perhaps had some awful lizard creeping up their backsides; They fidget, they try hard to find some words, some way to get round this, to belittle, twist to distort facts; but it is not easy, not easy when the entire world, the entire humanity are watching intently this incredible event. Finally, we heard the speech of President Bush Loud and clear. He, and the American people and their British and other valiant allies have much to do with this event.
Well, thank you Mr. President, we heard you; and I am sure you also heard us. Peace be upon you all and the mercy of Allah and his blessings." (Ib.)
That is not quite what you will read in the Old Press, nor in the press of the "Arab scum." It is too bad that the Old Press seems to have more in common with moral degenerates than Iraqis writing or fighting for Liberty.
(The Old Press takes the views typical to "objective" journalists and anthropologists, views that have already been written of here.)
The Messopotamian
"Yet we have been telling you this all along; we have been telling you ever since this blogging movement started. Do you now see that we were not representing minority views, that we were not some CIA agents trying to make propaganda?
I find it difficult right know to write coherently; I just want to convey to you some of the tremendous feelings overwhelming my soul now.
As for some of the Arab scum and other detractors, they are appearing on TV screens looking like they have just swallowed a cockroach, or perhaps had some awful lizard creeping up their backsides; They fidget, they try hard to find some words, some way to get round this, to belittle, twist to distort facts; but it is not easy, not easy when the entire world, the entire humanity are watching intently this incredible event. Finally, we heard the speech of President Bush Loud and clear. He, and the American people and their British and other valiant allies have much to do with this event.
Well, thank you Mr. President, we heard you; and I am sure you also heard us. Peace be upon you all and the mercy of Allah and his blessings." (Ib.)
That is not quite what you will read in the Old Press, nor in the press of the "Arab scum." It is too bad that the Old Press seems to have more in common with moral degenerates than Iraqis writing or fighting for Liberty.
(The Old Press takes the views typical to "objective" journalists and anthropologists, views that have already been written of here.)
Resistance to judicial diktat in history,
“[I]s [Lincoln] ready to endorse the sham Dred Scott decision and deny that a colored man….can be a citizen of this nation, although the foundation of its Government and Constitution is the legal equality of all its subjects?
…..
Will he stand up boldly, face to face, before the people of this land, and take that Pro-Slavery decision as authority and law? Will he assert with Wickliefe and the like that this is the ‘white man’s land,’ and that negroes under the Constitution can be neither ‘citizens’ nor even ‘people?’ Will he maintain that the colored citizens of Rhode Island, or any other State, are not also citizens of the Union?
…..
The assumption that men of African descent are not equal in law to others, and cannot be citizens under our national Constitution, and the attempt, in the Dred Scott case, to foist this doctrine into the law of the land as an irrepealable interpretation, is a part, and no unimportant part, of the Pro-Slavery abominations and encroachments which called the Republican party into existence….
.…all these wrongs and base violations of our Constitution must be done away before we shall stand as a nation upon safe and immovable ground. It is in vain to take these lies in our right hand, or attempt to put them as true stones in our building-we must sooner or later renounce them, or truth and right will renounce us. So long as this wrong to the whole colored race continues to be the prevailing practice of the nation, so long, I feel assured, will the displeasure and the pursuing and fierce judgments of God rest upon us.”
(Drafting Negroes
The New York Times, Aug 21, 1862
Editorial, pg. 2)
…..
Will he stand up boldly, face to face, before the people of this land, and take that Pro-Slavery decision as authority and law? Will he assert with Wickliefe and the like that this is the ‘white man’s land,’ and that negroes under the Constitution can be neither ‘citizens’ nor even ‘people?’ Will he maintain that the colored citizens of Rhode Island, or any other State, are not also citizens of the Union?
…..
The assumption that men of African descent are not equal in law to others, and cannot be citizens under our national Constitution, and the attempt, in the Dred Scott case, to foist this doctrine into the law of the land as an irrepealable interpretation, is a part, and no unimportant part, of the Pro-Slavery abominations and encroachments which called the Republican party into existence….
.…all these wrongs and base violations of our Constitution must be done away before we shall stand as a nation upon safe and immovable ground. It is in vain to take these lies in our right hand, or attempt to put them as true stones in our building-we must sooner or later renounce them, or truth and right will renounce us. So long as this wrong to the whole colored race continues to be the prevailing practice of the nation, so long, I feel assured, will the displeasure and the pursuing and fierce judgments of God rest upon us.”
(Drafting Negroes
The New York Times, Aug 21, 1862
Editorial, pg. 2)
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Me blog...
...it suffers a bit. But I've been having some fun again. I'll make some time for here, sometime.
Words...
Sometimes I let the concepts of my words do my talking for me, to see what they have to say. They have their say, in what I say.
You might say that my words speak for me.
(I don't want to push off an ongoing discussion. So here is the link (on anthropology) so that any involved or interested can still click to it through the front page. Bogging Blogger still has no recent comments, so that's the way I'll do things until they do.)
You might say that my words speak for me.
(I don't want to push off an ongoing discussion. So here is the link (on anthropology) so that any involved or interested can still click to it through the front page. Bogging Blogger still has no recent comments, so that's the way I'll do things until they do.)
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Index, III
Index, I
Index, II
Index, III:
The Art of Knowledge
To have a prayer...
Signs and Wonders
The Parable of the Detectives
A Story of Nipples
A Plain Parable
A Logical Parable
The Story of the Herd
Little Timmy's Story
The Parable of the White Southerner
The Gridiron
Biologists, a Parable
The Garden, I
The Garden, II
The Garden, III
The Garden, IV
The Garden, V
The Garden, VI
Index, II
Index, III:
The Art of Knowledge
To have a prayer...
Signs and Wonders
The Parable of the Detectives
A Story of Nipples
A Plain Parable
A Logical Parable
The Story of the Herd
Little Timmy's Story
The Parable of the White Southerner
The Gridiron
Biologists, a Parable
The Garden, I
The Garden, II
The Garden, III
The Garden, IV
The Garden, V
The Garden, VI
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Archive...
One of the accomplishments of living systems which is, of course, quite without any analogy in the field of our own technology is their capacity for self-duplication. With the dawn of the age of computers and automation after the Second World War, the theoretical possibility of constructing self-replicating automata was considered seriously by mathematicians and engineers. Von Neumann discussed the problem at great length in his famous book Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata, but the practical difficulties of converting the dream into reality have proved too daunting. As Von Neumann pointed out, the construction of any sort of self-replicating automaton would neces sitate the solution to three fundamental problems: that of storing information; that of duplicating information; and that of designing an automatic factory which could be programmed from the infor mation store to construct all the other components of the machine as well as duplicating itself. The solution to all three problems is found in living things and their elucidation has been one of the triumphs of modern biology.
So efficient is the mechanism of information storage and so elegant the mechanism of duplication of this remarkable molecule that it is hard to escape the feeling that the DNA molecule may be the one and only perfect solution to the twin problems of information storage and duplication for self-replicating automata.
The solution to the problem of the automatic factory lies in the ribosome. Basically, the ribosome is a collection of some fifty or so large molecules, mainly proteins, which fit tightly together. Altogether the ribosome consists of a highly organized structure of more than one million atoms which can synthesise any protein that it is instructed to make by the DNA, including the particular proteins which compromise its own structure — so the ribosome can construct itself!
The protein synthetic apparatus is also, however, the solution to an even deeper problem than that of self-replication. Proteins can be designed to perform structural, logical, and catalytic functions. For instance, they form the impervious materials of the skin, the contractile elements of muscles, the transparent substance of the lens of the eye: and, because of their practically unlimited potential, almost any conceivable biochemical object can be ultimately constructed using these remarkable molecules as basic structural and functional units. The choice of the protein synthetic apparatus as the solution to the problem of the automatic factory has deep implications. Not only does it represent a solution to one of the problems of designing a self- duplicating machine but it also represents a solution to an even deeper problem, that of constructing a universal automaton. The protein synthetic apparatus cannot only replicate itself but, in addition, if given the correct information, it can also construct any other biochemical machine, however great its complexity, just so long as its basic functional units are comprised of proteins, which, because of the near infinite number of uses to which they can be put, gives it almost limitless potential.
It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from a giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10^16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.
(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
By Michael Denton :337-338)
Monday, February 14, 2005
What some try to see as plain, may not be plain.
A parable, on how to ascertain what may not be plain.
Once upon a time there was a group of intelligent people who were cut off from the accumulation of human knowledge. So they were left behind the technological advances of human civilization, as sometimes happens. They generally lived together well enough, decently, as such is not an issue of technology.
Then one day a man saw a plane fly over their jungle and brought back the story to the village. Because he was known to be trustworthy the people believed his witness, the story of such a strange phenomena excited them and inspired a search for answers. Eventually a man and a woman in the community had their role come to be trying to figure out what it had been, among other things having to do with knowledge.
The man said, "We know natural things like birds, trees and flowers. This is all we observe. This is all we can test. So a natural explanation is all we can allow ourselves. So I think it was just a type of bird, like what we know."
"I do not believe that was a type of bird." replied the woman. "We can also observe that we can make things. If there was a race of humans or other beings that had a sort of intelligence similar to our own then there is no telling what they could make. I think that was something made by a civilization far, far in advance of our own."
"Well, I saw a bird fly the other day. So it obviously doesn't take any technology to fly."
"Are you sure?" replied the woman.
"Hmmm, what is technology, anyway?"
"It would seem that it is just the practical application of knowledge."
Then the man said, "Oh....this is probably going to keep us thinking for a while."
The woman replied, "Yes....thinking, well, that will probably keep us out of trouble."
So they kept thinking about the story of the plane and in so doing they began to accumulate knowledge, which kept them out of trouble.
Once upon a time there was a group of intelligent people who were cut off from the accumulation of human knowledge. So they were left behind the technological advances of human civilization, as sometimes happens. They generally lived together well enough, decently, as such is not an issue of technology.
Then one day a man saw a plane fly over their jungle and brought back the story to the village. Because he was known to be trustworthy the people believed his witness, the story of such a strange phenomena excited them and inspired a search for answers. Eventually a man and a woman in the community had their role come to be trying to figure out what it had been, among other things having to do with knowledge.
The man said, "We know natural things like birds, trees and flowers. This is all we observe. This is all we can test. So a natural explanation is all we can allow ourselves. So I think it was just a type of bird, like what we know."
"I do not believe that was a type of bird." replied the woman. "We can also observe that we can make things. If there was a race of humans or other beings that had a sort of intelligence similar to our own then there is no telling what they could make. I think that was something made by a civilization far, far in advance of our own."
"Well, I saw a bird fly the other day. So it obviously doesn't take any technology to fly."
"Are you sure?" replied the woman.
"Hmmm, what is technology, anyway?"
"It would seem that it is just the practical application of knowledge."
Then the man said, "Oh....this is probably going to keep us thinking for a while."
The woman replied, "Yes....thinking, well, that will probably keep us out of trouble."
So they kept thinking about the story of the plane and in so doing they began to accumulate knowledge, which kept them out of trouble.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Eating Disorders
I think I will research eating disorders. I was going to write a parable about the Beauty Queen. But in writing it, I'm not sure I know the patterns of her story so well. Another reason I want to research it is because I keep hearing, "Oh, she had (or has) an eating disorder." about various people. It's rather mysterious, how you could begin to abuse food or grow to refuse it.
To not like food!? Now that is quite a mystery to me, something to ponder.
One speculation, I suspect that people can condition themselves. I.e., something begins only as a way to lose weight, yet if you are throwing up and feeling nauseas from that then you have begun to condition yourself. Eventually, you will feel nauseas at the sight of food, etc. And who knows what psychological or social patterns can get in there to be associated with it all, perhaps built on such feelings too. Rats will starve themselves to death if they are conditioned with respect to a certain type of food by nausea once, rather than eat that type of food again.
So it is a strong form of conditioning, perhaps the strongest.
A side note,
I am not necessarily against feelings and their condition. For some reason that is a typical assumption that people who debate me make. Those who are ruled by their feelings have one little confrontation with the ratios of the rational and they begin to say, "Hey, I feel he must be a robot!" That is rather silly. No, I suppose I would say that I am for letting the rational/logic guide the emotional/feelings in a complementary way. It seems that it is best if they are married. That's my touchy feely feeling about that.
Anyway, I may write about eating disorders and try to get some understanding of their patterns, perhaps enough to write a little story on it. But I may not do so if I get bogged down with it. If someone already knows something about it, maybe leave a comment.
To not like food!? Now that is quite a mystery to me, something to ponder.
One speculation, I suspect that people can condition themselves. I.e., something begins only as a way to lose weight, yet if you are throwing up and feeling nauseas from that then you have begun to condition yourself. Eventually, you will feel nauseas at the sight of food, etc. And who knows what psychological or social patterns can get in there to be associated with it all, perhaps built on such feelings too. Rats will starve themselves to death if they are conditioned with respect to a certain type of food by nausea once, rather than eat that type of food again.
So it is a strong form of conditioning, perhaps the strongest.
A side note,
I am not necessarily against feelings and their condition. For some reason that is a typical assumption that people who debate me make. Those who are ruled by their feelings have one little confrontation with the ratios of the rational and they begin to say, "Hey, I feel he must be a robot!" That is rather silly. No, I suppose I would say that I am for letting the rational/logic guide the emotional/feelings in a complementary way. It seems that it is best if they are married. That's my touchy feely feeling about that.
Anyway, I may write about eating disorders and try to get some understanding of their patterns, perhaps enough to write a little story on it. But I may not do so if I get bogged down with it. If someone already knows something about it, maybe leave a comment.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
New Bloggers...
A Sci-Phi blog is beginning. I think it will do well. It seems timely in the wired world. Apparently they've come across some of the cold toads that I have had some back and forth with from before blogs.
Of this they write:
"When first learning of the existence of the Panda's Thumb and hearing that it was leveling a number of attacks upon Crux, I must admit that I was happy that our fledgling publication was being taken seriously enough by the scientific community to warrant some fifty-odd separate posts on our ID [Intelligent Design] coverage. Now that I've seen the substance of those posts, however, I feel somewhat ashamed of my initial enthusiasm. In fact, this is the last reference to the site that I will make in this blog. Such manipulative and decidedly unscientific ire is simply not worth my time.
Indeed, after wasting the better part of my morning reading through the many smug and mean-spirited comments attached to Brayton's analysis, it's all I can do to keep from telling these people where they can put their Panda's thumb."
cf. Crux Mag
A while back I began to heap scorn on the heads of the cold toads and their mythological narratives of naturalism. In contrast, the patience of the ID fellows with the Darwinist nit wits seems to be holding on and on. I'm not sure it should be.
On the same blog they note a separate article citing a Time magazine article on ID:
"A look . . . at the religious beliefs of many scientists who support I.D.," he writes, "makes it reasonable to suspect that [Eugenie] Scott's assertion is correct: intelligent design is just a smoke screen for those who think evolution is somehow ungodly."
Note,
"Evolution is the framework that makes sense of the whole natural world from the formation of atoms, galaxies, stars and planets, to the AIDS virus, giant redwood trees and our own health and well-being….
Dorothy was lucky because the Wizard of Oz was wise. The wizards of the Kansas State Board of Education look foolish in comparison."
--Dr. Maxine Singer
President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington
(Washington Post, August 18, 1999)
God didn't make sense, evolution makes all sense. Yes, that is "ungodly." It's the same sort of thing that pagans have always said. One half expects them to raise up some idols that merge the categories of human and animal, like some Egyptian Bird-man, etc.
Yet, they already did raise up Ape-man. So take down that cross and raise up an idol of Ape-man, with funding from an atheistic State. Socialists will believe that it is fine to actively fund one sort of mythological narrative, while also using the State to attack some historical symbols. For Ape-man does not threaten the totalitarian power of the Leftists and their collectivist State, no more than Dog-man threatened the tribalistic State of the pagans of old.
Perhaps those who believe in Naturalism must invariably be textual degenerates and therefore, moral degenerates. So then it does not matter what they write by natural selection, naturally enough. For their text is just matter and they will write whatever Nature selects for them to write. It is a universal sense that there is something wrong, or degenerate, in Nature. So that degeneracy will be included or amplified in their text. The symbols of "their," i.e. Nature's selections in their text will be amplified instead of being filtered out as it would be if they were actively intelligent, instead of passively degenerate.
DNA is also like a text, code is code. Without information you will have deformation, reformation goes against deformation, yet reformation is not creation. (As in the Reformation, sola scriptura, an infusion of information that was not new.) As any writer and programmer knows, information does not just up and write itself. Even if you write a program that contains adaptive and replicative capacities, it's still not writing itself. Perhaps you would keep writing it and creating it as you went. If so, it's still not writing itself. An interesting question is whether you would know before hand how all that you had programmed would adapt or change. And so on.
But instead of going on here, here are two old parables:
The Author
The Programmer
Of this they write:
"When first learning of the existence of the Panda's Thumb and hearing that it was leveling a number of attacks upon Crux, I must admit that I was happy that our fledgling publication was being taken seriously enough by the scientific community to warrant some fifty-odd separate posts on our ID [Intelligent Design] coverage. Now that I've seen the substance of those posts, however, I feel somewhat ashamed of my initial enthusiasm. In fact, this is the last reference to the site that I will make in this blog. Such manipulative and decidedly unscientific ire is simply not worth my time.
Indeed, after wasting the better part of my morning reading through the many smug and mean-spirited comments attached to Brayton's analysis, it's all I can do to keep from telling these people where they can put their Panda's thumb."
cf. Crux Mag
A while back I began to heap scorn on the heads of the cold toads and their mythological narratives of naturalism. In contrast, the patience of the ID fellows with the Darwinist nit wits seems to be holding on and on. I'm not sure it should be.
On the same blog they note a separate article citing a Time magazine article on ID:
"A look . . . at the religious beliefs of many scientists who support I.D.," he writes, "makes it reasonable to suspect that [Eugenie] Scott's assertion is correct: intelligent design is just a smoke screen for those who think evolution is somehow ungodly."
Note,
"Evolution is the framework that makes sense of the whole natural world from the formation of atoms, galaxies, stars and planets, to the AIDS virus, giant redwood trees and our own health and well-being….
Dorothy was lucky because the Wizard of Oz was wise. The wizards of the Kansas State Board of Education look foolish in comparison."
--Dr. Maxine Singer
President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington
(Washington Post, August 18, 1999)
God didn't make sense, evolution makes all sense. Yes, that is "ungodly." It's the same sort of thing that pagans have always said. One half expects them to raise up some idols that merge the categories of human and animal, like some Egyptian Bird-man, etc.
Yet, they already did raise up Ape-man. So take down that cross and raise up an idol of Ape-man, with funding from an atheistic State. Socialists will believe that it is fine to actively fund one sort of mythological narrative, while also using the State to attack some historical symbols. For Ape-man does not threaten the totalitarian power of the Leftists and their collectivist State, no more than Dog-man threatened the tribalistic State of the pagans of old.
Perhaps those who believe in Naturalism must invariably be textual degenerates and therefore, moral degenerates. So then it does not matter what they write by natural selection, naturally enough. For their text is just matter and they will write whatever Nature selects for them to write. It is a universal sense that there is something wrong, or degenerate, in Nature. So that degeneracy will be included or amplified in their text. The symbols of "their," i.e. Nature's selections in their text will be amplified instead of being filtered out as it would be if they were actively intelligent, instead of passively degenerate.
DNA is also like a text, code is code. Without information you will have deformation, reformation goes against deformation, yet reformation is not creation. (As in the Reformation, sola scriptura, an infusion of information that was not new.) As any writer and programmer knows, information does not just up and write itself. Even if you write a program that contains adaptive and replicative capacities, it's still not writing itself. Perhaps you would keep writing it and creating it as you went. If so, it's still not writing itself. An interesting question is whether you would know before hand how all that you had programmed would adapt or change. And so on.
But instead of going on here, here are two old parables:
The Author
The Programmer
Friday, February 11, 2005
Narratives and senses of humors...
I can say this for evolutionism or philosophic naturalism, if it is true that a sense of humor is as a sense of our own humors, then evolutionism is a grand joke. It reduces humans to humors or humus. So then a sentient being (If they are not reduced to the crass and crude by actually believing it.) can have a stronger sense of their own humors. I like reading what evolutionists have to say, since it is good material for some things, as is all spiritual monism. It seems that the materialist is the best material for satire.
Take an example, the male nipple is supposedly vestigial. In other words, men have a trace of a useless nipple because once upon a time there was a single proto-human who...reproduced on their own. Etc., there is some mythological narrative of naturalism for it.
Anyway, back to these vestigial nipples. (Why two, I wonder, perhaps one is ancestral to the other?) How about a story...
Once upon a time there was a scientist who created some little creatures and put them in a place he made for them. He noticed them doing some odd things and he heard them murmuring in to him what was a simplistic language, "Hey, I have nipples. But they don't do anything! Hmmm, that must mean that no one created us. Besides, if they did create then they covered it up well. Look at this, and that, it seems like it is all just of us and our own place here." So the scientist watched for a while as the little creatures pointed to their chests and pointed around in the place he had made for them. He was fascinated by some of the stories they came up with about it all. One day, it was time to do away with the place he had made for them. So he took some creatures he saved into a different place. But he set one of the ones he saved aside for a moment and asked, "About that nipple business, what were they thinking?" The little creature replied, "I really can't say. But like they said, why didn't you just make things obvious? Besides, why create things to be so that I have these little useless nipples on me, it seems odd."
The scientist replied, "I know more about my own creations than you do. But let me tell you a story. Once, I created some creatures, put them in a world, and made it be so that some would have nipples and some would not. But there was this problem with nipplism. Some of the creatures apparently thought, 'Hah, I have nipples and these others don't! That must mean that I, and all nipple people are superior!' So the nipplists began to mistreat the others....and well, it was a problem."
The creature looked thoughtful, "Well...I guess a creature like me can't know all that might happen."
Then he looked at his chest and said, "Huh, and here I thought these things were useless."
Take an example, the male nipple is supposedly vestigial. In other words, men have a trace of a useless nipple because once upon a time there was a single proto-human who...reproduced on their own. Etc., there is some mythological narrative of naturalism for it.
Anyway, back to these vestigial nipples. (Why two, I wonder, perhaps one is ancestral to the other?) How about a story...
Once upon a time there was a scientist who created some little creatures and put them in a place he made for them. He noticed them doing some odd things and he heard them murmuring in to him what was a simplistic language, "Hey, I have nipples. But they don't do anything! Hmmm, that must mean that no one created us. Besides, if they did create then they covered it up well. Look at this, and that, it seems like it is all just of us and our own place here." So the scientist watched for a while as the little creatures pointed to their chests and pointed around in the place he had made for them. He was fascinated by some of the stories they came up with about it all. One day, it was time to do away with the place he had made for them. So he took some creatures he saved into a different place. But he set one of the ones he saved aside for a moment and asked, "About that nipple business, what were they thinking?" The little creature replied, "I really can't say. But like they said, why didn't you just make things obvious? Besides, why create things to be so that I have these little useless nipples on me, it seems odd."
The scientist replied, "I know more about my own creations than you do. But let me tell you a story. Once, I created some creatures, put them in a world, and made it be so that some would have nipples and some would not. But there was this problem with nipplism. Some of the creatures apparently thought, 'Hah, I have nipples and these others don't! That must mean that I, and all nipple people are superior!' So the nipplists began to mistreat the others....and well, it was a problem."
The creature looked thoughtful, "Well...I guess a creature like me can't know all that might happen."
Then he looked at his chest and said, "Huh, and here I thought these things were useless."
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Anthropologists...
They have a habit of being Leftists at a rate of thirty to one, if there is even one in the thirty. The framework of their scholarship is cultural relativism, which is moral relativism. The pattern seems to generally go like this: They try to be objective by being more like a data recording object. They exchange the objective, the pursuit of truth, for just being more like an object. (This is also what some journalists do as well.) The more they are like an inanimate object then the more dead in the head they are with respect to Good and Evil. You do not become good or generally do good scholarship that way, instead you become more evil. Yet the Leftists who are dead in the head in such a way are not actually inanimate, like an "objective" object. So they still have some sentience, some judgment hidden away in their attempted lack of judgment. Their judgment will be against judgment itself, as it typically is among those who lack judgment. That is the only way to try to hide their own lack of judgment. Thus you will hear about something called "ethnocentrism." That is to consider your culture superior to another. As with any relativism, one ought to turn things around and begin to set to Right the relations between things that the Left cannot.
What is right is quite simple, some cultures are superior to others. Yes, amazing but true, some views are superior to others. If you were put on an island with a whole group of people who wanted to kill you right now then you'd probably agree that inferior and superior views exist. All that anthropologists are really saying is, "Hey, some groups of people believe that. Hmmm, other groups of people believe this. Therefore, we can safely say that everyone is wrong. Yes, we are sure, as a group, that we are right about that....and this too!"
(Note that it is not really news that people disagree with each other, even groups of people. Why this causes some to go off and argue that disagreement means that no one is correct, is not apparent. )
Let's say it is relative, as they say. If it is relative, what is it relative to? If it is relational, what is it all related to? Their conclusions seem to be where they got tired of thinking, relatively. Do these anthropologists consider their own academic culture superior? It certainly seems that they do. They seem to consider what they say from inside their academic "cult"ure as superior, something worth considering true. But how ethnocentric such a cult would be! Anthropologists, on the whole, seem to have a habit of being moral degenerates. So perhaps their culture is inferior.
One example, from many:
"Mentorships are a much more common form of homosexual behavior than previously considered. These relationships usually form between a preadolescent and either an older adolescent or an adult. Adams (Adams, B.D. 1985. Age, Structure, and Sexuality. Journal of Homosexuality. 11:19-33) has summarized the ethnographic data for male mentorships.
.....Ethically this is a particularly touchy issue. There is an enormous ["]prejudice["] against similar kinds of patnerships in the United States (indeed they are typically illegal), and the older partner is usually defined as mentally ill or as a sexual criminal."
(Annual Review of Anthropology,Vol. 16, 1987,
The Cross-Cultural Study of Human Sexuality,
By D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :69-98)
I would not mind the use of the term prejudice if it was meant in a conservative sense of collected and collective experience and tradition that is most likely valid. But anthropologists are not conservatives and to them the term is just a buzzword for supposed injustice, often associated with racism.
________
A side note on that typical belief of Leftists about "prejudices" and associating all prejudice with racism in simplistic ways. If the Leftist argument is true and homophiles are just like blacks then so are pedophiles with prejudice being wrong in all instances. There are African Americans who get a little tired of this pattern of deviants latching on to their history to try to alter public policy through the guise of "civil rights." It is little wonder. Everyone seems to want to be in on the bandwagon now, even fat people. I'm not really writing satire much of the time. There actually are fat people who are talking about fat pride, etc., just like gay pride. There are already law reviews being written about discrimination based on facial symetry. I.e., a few ugly people may be talking about ugly rights or ugly pride next. That one is hard to believe, yet I would've said the same about fat pride a few years ago.
Anyway, it probably would be a little tiresome to have gluttons or hedonistic sexual deviants trying to compare themselves to you all the time. Why do so many seek to abuse civil rights? It's mainly from the American judiciary becoming politicized. They politicized themselves, then their nominating process is politicized. Of course it is, and that is the fault of Leftists.
End, side note.
___________
What is right is quite simple, some cultures are superior to others. Yes, amazing but true, some views are superior to others. If you were put on an island with a whole group of people who wanted to kill you right now then you'd probably agree that inferior and superior views exist. All that anthropologists are really saying is, "Hey, some groups of people believe that. Hmmm, other groups of people believe this. Therefore, we can safely say that everyone is wrong. Yes, we are sure, as a group, that we are right about that....and this too!"
(Note that it is not really news that people disagree with each other, even groups of people. Why this causes some to go off and argue that disagreement means that no one is correct, is not apparent. )
Let's say it is relative, as they say. If it is relative, what is it relative to? If it is relational, what is it all related to? Their conclusions seem to be where they got tired of thinking, relatively. Do these anthropologists consider their own academic culture superior? It certainly seems that they do. They seem to consider what they say from inside their academic "cult"ure as superior, something worth considering true. But how ethnocentric such a cult would be! Anthropologists, on the whole, seem to have a habit of being moral degenerates. So perhaps their culture is inferior.
One example, from many:
"Mentorships are a much more common form of homosexual behavior than previously considered. These relationships usually form between a preadolescent and either an older adolescent or an adult. Adams (Adams, B.D. 1985. Age, Structure, and Sexuality. Journal of Homosexuality. 11:19-33) has summarized the ethnographic data for male mentorships.
.....Ethically this is a particularly touchy issue. There is an enormous ["]prejudice["] against similar kinds of patnerships in the United States (indeed they are typically illegal), and the older partner is usually defined as mentally ill or as a sexual criminal."
(Annual Review of Anthropology,Vol. 16, 1987,
The Cross-Cultural Study of Human Sexuality,
By D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :69-98)
I would not mind the use of the term prejudice if it was meant in a conservative sense of collected and collective experience and tradition that is most likely valid. But anthropologists are not conservatives and to them the term is just a buzzword for supposed injustice, often associated with racism.
________
A side note on that typical belief of Leftists about "prejudices" and associating all prejudice with racism in simplistic ways. If the Leftist argument is true and homophiles are just like blacks then so are pedophiles with prejudice being wrong in all instances. There are African Americans who get a little tired of this pattern of deviants latching on to their history to try to alter public policy through the guise of "civil rights." It is little wonder. Everyone seems to want to be in on the bandwagon now, even fat people. I'm not really writing satire much of the time. There actually are fat people who are talking about fat pride, etc., just like gay pride. There are already law reviews being written about discrimination based on facial symetry. I.e., a few ugly people may be talking about ugly rights or ugly pride next. That one is hard to believe, yet I would've said the same about fat pride a few years ago.
Anyway, it probably would be a little tiresome to have gluttons or hedonistic sexual deviants trying to compare themselves to you all the time. Why do so many seek to abuse civil rights? It's mainly from the American judiciary becoming politicized. They politicized themselves, then their nominating process is politicized. Of course it is, and that is the fault of Leftists.
End, side note.
___________
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Hmmm...
Unfortunately, I spent my blogging time this evening on something else. I'm CJW there. Helping out some conservatives, I suppose...hmmm, dancers and artists, fun, fun, time for some knowledge and words.
Maybe I'll get a post on here after checking some messages and things. Well, there's a few comments under Niceville too.
Later.
Maybe I'll get a post on here after checking some messages and things. Well, there's a few comments under Niceville too.
Later.
Monday, February 07, 2005
A Wonder of the World, Motion...
There are those who feel that all is matter in motion. There is probably something the matter with trying to think that, for what puts motion in matter? That is the crux of the matter. For that matter, it is probably the fact of the matter, as a matter of fact.
Motion, it matters.
"29. Motion-1
One of the great discoveries of modern science is the revelation that everything is in motion. For instance, everything on earth is hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour. If you stand still or sit down, like it or not you will continue to rotate around the sun and the sun itself will be rotating around a galaxy that in turn is racing away from the other galaxies. Moreover the particles that make up your body whirl around ceaselessly, and they continue doing so even when you’re dead!
30. Motion—2
So how did this motion originate? We know that the earth moves because of gravitational force: the sun pulls the earth and consequently the earth orbits it. Gravity itself is the result of the curvature of space and space curves because of mass. But why does mass cause the curvature of space? Currently there’s no answer to this, and even if a scientific explanation were to emerge, we could then ask why that particular state of affairs obtains. The same is true of motion caused by other physical forces, such as the expansion of the galaxies from the Big Bang, the motion of an electron around the nucleus. In all these cases, we come to a point where we have no further explanation for the way things are, other than to say that’s the way they are."
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey From
Modern Science to the Mind of God
By Roy Abraham Varghese :403-404)
That's not a wonder that shakes the earth like thunder. It all continues silently right there in us and around us. It goes on even as evil things happen and tiny creatures shake their lil' fists at the sky and shout, "Why God, why?!"
Why? Where you there when matter was put in motion? That's the only reason that we are here to ask why. Those who have minds, let them use them.
Motion, it matters.
"29. Motion-1
One of the great discoveries of modern science is the revelation that everything is in motion. For instance, everything on earth is hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour. If you stand still or sit down, like it or not you will continue to rotate around the sun and the sun itself will be rotating around a galaxy that in turn is racing away from the other galaxies. Moreover the particles that make up your body whirl around ceaselessly, and they continue doing so even when you’re dead!
30. Motion—2
So how did this motion originate? We know that the earth moves because of gravitational force: the sun pulls the earth and consequently the earth orbits it. Gravity itself is the result of the curvature of space and space curves because of mass. But why does mass cause the curvature of space? Currently there’s no answer to this, and even if a scientific explanation were to emerge, we could then ask why that particular state of affairs obtains. The same is true of motion caused by other physical forces, such as the expansion of the galaxies from the Big Bang, the motion of an electron around the nucleus. In all these cases, we come to a point where we have no further explanation for the way things are, other than to say that’s the way they are."
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey From
Modern Science to the Mind of God
By Roy Abraham Varghese :403-404)
That's not a wonder that shakes the earth like thunder. It all continues silently right there in us and around us. It goes on even as evil things happen and tiny creatures shake their lil' fists at the sky and shout, "Why God, why?!"
Why? Where you there when matter was put in motion? That's the only reason that we are here to ask why. Those who have minds, let them use them.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Niceville...
....once upon a sometime, there was a nice little village in a nice little woods. It was called Niceville. All the people that lived in Niceville were, well, nice. They had nice little homes and nice little gardens. But one thing they didn't have was any powerful weapons because they didn't write anything down and so didn't have much knowledge about anything. They didn't believe that words really meant anything other than nice soothing coos meant to be nice. Their lack of weapons suited them because weapons....they simply are not nice.
On one side of Niceville there was a shining city on a hill which had narrow gates and strong defenses. On the other side of Niceville there was a dark city that had wide gates and sprawling weak defenses. The city on a hill was ruled by an honorable General who ruled by truth, justice and mercy. The dark cities were ruled by warring factions who sometimes made alliances so as to make war against the General. The war between the cities was constant and unlike the people of Niceville these cities made and used many weapons. Sometimes, as war planes flew overhead the people of Niceville would look up at the sky, give a nice little shake of their heads and say, "Now...that is just not nice! If only everyone would be nice and weak, as nice as we are!" Every once in a while some of the boys from Niceville would make it to the city on a hill and become soldiers. But most went into the city with the wider gates.
One day, some boys from Niceville were playing in the woods near the dark cities. Some of the men of the city came from the city and said, "You know, the General from the city on the hill has plans to cut down your nice woods and demolish Niceville! He is your enemy." These men who seemed nice had an edited copy of the General's rules of engagement (It needed to be edited to make it nice they said.) which they gave to the nice boys who accepted it. The men also had some vests for the boys to wear, they seemed nice enough too. The men left and the boys went to the other side of Niceville towards the shining city on a hill where they normally played.
About the same time, two soldiers were driving a tank out of city on the hill. One was a veteran and the other was a new recruit. They saw the boys coming through the woods from Niceville. "What's that in their hands?" the new recruit asked. Hmmm, "Looks like sticks...and they're waving them about as if they can fight." the veteran replied with a tone of resignation. He muttered, "Here we go again, some boys from Niceville have been talking to the other side again. This just isn't my day." The two drove the tank closer to the woods. The recruit noted, "Hey, looks like they have vests on." The veteran said, "Uh oh, they've been rigged with bombs from the dark city."
"So let's just blast them!"
The veteran called the general and then replied, "Nope, he says to blast all around them and try to scare them back to Niceville but to avoid blowing them up." The new recruit said, "What is that one boy doing...Hey, it looks like he's trying to go around our tank to see it from all sides. How odd!" The veteran said, "Okay, blast next to him on the left." The recruit said, "Yup, that did it. Looks like he'll be seeing things from the right side for a while!" Another boy was just sitting there and he seemed to be just banging two sticks together. The veteran said, "Hmmm, oh just leave him be, he's just sitting there." The recruit replied, "But he'll blow up eventually. Let's blast next to him too!"
"Oh, okay." So they did. "Nope...still just sitting there. I don't think he even heard it." said the recruit. But another nice little boy did...and so with a quaver in his voice he said, "Now, that's REALLY just not nice!!" He started running at the tank.... "Back her up." The recruit replied in exasperation, "Oh, just run over him!"
"Nope, General's orders and besides...with great power comes great responsibility." The recruit just looked at the veteran for a moment.
"Okay, okay, I watched Spiderman last night. Geez man, cut me some slack here!"
The recruit noted, "Look, we're backing up all the way into the city and if we go there...." The veteran said, "Okay, blast next to him now!" When the smoke cleared the veteran said, "Oopsy....that one was a little close."
"Yup."
"Hmmm, hey there's someone behind that boy back there who threw a stick once and then just kept shouting, "That's not nice!"
"Yup, looks like the leader of Niceville or something."
The leader spoke saying, "I cordially invite you, nicely, to go back to the city on the hill." The recruit whispered, "Hey, why is he inviting us to go back to our own city anyway?" The veteran said, "Beats me...but he sure is nice about it. Remember, people from Niceville don't believe something has to actually make sense, as long as it proves how nice they are, in their own eyes."
"False niceness? Let's blast him!"
"No, look, it looks like they're going back to Niceville now."
The recruit replied, "Well, won't they all blow up?" The veteran said, "Oh, that's not the worst of the things that go on in Niceville where people are a little 'too nice' and a little 'too friendly.'"
For the neutral town of Niceville was not so nice, after all. It was a rather dark city itself and part of the dark cities. The people living there did not realize it, so they called themselves nice and their neutral town Niceville.
But there was only one shining city on a hill that was truly nice, it was the General's city.
On one side of Niceville there was a shining city on a hill which had narrow gates and strong defenses. On the other side of Niceville there was a dark city that had wide gates and sprawling weak defenses. The city on a hill was ruled by an honorable General who ruled by truth, justice and mercy. The dark cities were ruled by warring factions who sometimes made alliances so as to make war against the General. The war between the cities was constant and unlike the people of Niceville these cities made and used many weapons. Sometimes, as war planes flew overhead the people of Niceville would look up at the sky, give a nice little shake of their heads and say, "Now...that is just not nice! If only everyone would be nice and weak, as nice as we are!" Every once in a while some of the boys from Niceville would make it to the city on a hill and become soldiers. But most went into the city with the wider gates.
One day, some boys from Niceville were playing in the woods near the dark cities. Some of the men of the city came from the city and said, "You know, the General from the city on the hill has plans to cut down your nice woods and demolish Niceville! He is your enemy." These men who seemed nice had an edited copy of the General's rules of engagement (It needed to be edited to make it nice they said.) which they gave to the nice boys who accepted it. The men also had some vests for the boys to wear, they seemed nice enough too. The men left and the boys went to the other side of Niceville towards the shining city on a hill where they normally played.
About the same time, two soldiers were driving a tank out of city on the hill. One was a veteran and the other was a new recruit. They saw the boys coming through the woods from Niceville. "What's that in their hands?" the new recruit asked. Hmmm, "Looks like sticks...and they're waving them about as if they can fight." the veteran replied with a tone of resignation. He muttered, "Here we go again, some boys from Niceville have been talking to the other side again. This just isn't my day." The two drove the tank closer to the woods. The recruit noted, "Hey, looks like they have vests on." The veteran said, "Uh oh, they've been rigged with bombs from the dark city."
"So let's just blast them!"
The veteran called the general and then replied, "Nope, he says to blast all around them and try to scare them back to Niceville but to avoid blowing them up." The new recruit said, "What is that one boy doing...Hey, it looks like he's trying to go around our tank to see it from all sides. How odd!" The veteran said, "Okay, blast next to him on the left." The recruit said, "Yup, that did it. Looks like he'll be seeing things from the right side for a while!" Another boy was just sitting there and he seemed to be just banging two sticks together. The veteran said, "Hmmm, oh just leave him be, he's just sitting there." The recruit replied, "But he'll blow up eventually. Let's blast next to him too!"
"Oh, okay." So they did. "Nope...still just sitting there. I don't think he even heard it." said the recruit. But another nice little boy did...and so with a quaver in his voice he said, "Now, that's REALLY just not nice!!" He started running at the tank.... "Back her up." The recruit replied in exasperation, "Oh, just run over him!"
"Nope, General's orders and besides...with great power comes great responsibility." The recruit just looked at the veteran for a moment.
"Okay, okay, I watched Spiderman last night. Geez man, cut me some slack here!"
The recruit noted, "Look, we're backing up all the way into the city and if we go there...." The veteran said, "Okay, blast next to him now!" When the smoke cleared the veteran said, "Oopsy....that one was a little close."
"Yup."
"Hmmm, hey there's someone behind that boy back there who threw a stick once and then just kept shouting, "That's not nice!"
"Yup, looks like the leader of Niceville or something."
The leader spoke saying, "I cordially invite you, nicely, to go back to the city on the hill." The recruit whispered, "Hey, why is he inviting us to go back to our own city anyway?" The veteran said, "Beats me...but he sure is nice about it. Remember, people from Niceville don't believe something has to actually make sense, as long as it proves how nice they are, in their own eyes."
"False niceness? Let's blast him!"
"No, look, it looks like they're going back to Niceville now."
The recruit replied, "Well, won't they all blow up?" The veteran said, "Oh, that's not the worst of the things that go on in Niceville where people are a little 'too nice' and a little 'too friendly.'"
For the neutral town of Niceville was not so nice, after all. It was a rather dark city itself and part of the dark cities. The people living there did not realize it, so they called themselves nice and their neutral town Niceville.
But there was only one shining city on a hill that was truly nice, it was the General's city.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
A little debate...
I'm in a little debate here. There are some identity politics being used in it.
So a parable, of a fellow and his gays.
Once upon a time there was a fellow who could not see the people for all his gays. He was very interested in his gays. He liked to say, "See my gays dance and prance, see them run! Why, just the other day my gays and I ran, ran along in a field of flowers! We were so happy and gay, that day. Now I shall have my gays dance for you, again. Dance my gays, prance!"
I think I shall make up groups of people too. That way, they'll do whatever I say they do.
So a parable, of a fellow and his gays.
Once upon a time there was a fellow who could not see the people for all his gays. He was very interested in his gays. He liked to say, "See my gays dance and prance, see them run! Why, just the other day my gays and I ran, ran along in a field of flowers! We were so happy and gay, that day. Now I shall have my gays dance for you, again. Dance my gays, prance!"
I think I shall make up groups of people too. That way, they'll do whatever I say they do.
Friday, February 04, 2005
A Logical Parable...
A parable, about a boy with a philosophy professor of logic for a dad.
Once upon a time there was a boy with a logical dad. He was camping with his friends in a park one day and they came across a fire. He put his hand over it until it hurt and then said, "Ouch, that's hot!" His friends said, "Yeah."
Then they came to another campfire and he put his hand over it again and said the same thing. His friends gave him an odd look and said, "Yeah, didn't you learn the last time?" He replied, "Well, I would not want to be hasty about generalizing. Maybe, there is one fire that is not hot!"
So he did the same thing again at the next fire and burned his hand.
Then they came to a slope that looked rather slippery. A boy slipped down the side of it a little and said, "Wow, it's slippery alright!" But the one boy said, "Maybe some parts of the slope are not so slippery. I would not want to judge the slope, as so slippery."
Then he slipped down the slippery slope and hurt his ankle.
They finally came to their car to get in and go home. But the one boy with the burned hand and hurt ankle looked at the wheels and said, "Those wheels, they look circular!" The other boys just looked at him again, then got in the car. So he got in too. As they drove away he said, "The circular wheels are spinning, what strange madness is this circular reason that we're going forward!"
One truly philosophical boy replied, "Well, it's quite simple really. All fire is hot. A slippery slope is slippery and circles, well, they are quite circular."
Once upon a time there was a boy with a logical dad. He was camping with his friends in a park one day and they came across a fire. He put his hand over it until it hurt and then said, "Ouch, that's hot!" His friends said, "Yeah."
Then they came to another campfire and he put his hand over it again and said the same thing. His friends gave him an odd look and said, "Yeah, didn't you learn the last time?" He replied, "Well, I would not want to be hasty about generalizing. Maybe, there is one fire that is not hot!"
So he did the same thing again at the next fire and burned his hand.
Then they came to a slope that looked rather slippery. A boy slipped down the side of it a little and said, "Wow, it's slippery alright!" But the one boy said, "Maybe some parts of the slope are not so slippery. I would not want to judge the slope, as so slippery."
Then he slipped down the slippery slope and hurt his ankle.
They finally came to their car to get in and go home. But the one boy with the burned hand and hurt ankle looked at the wheels and said, "Those wheels, they look circular!" The other boys just looked at him again, then got in the car. So he got in too. As they drove away he said, "The circular wheels are spinning, what strange madness is this circular reason that we're going forward!"
One truly philosophical boy replied, "Well, it's quite simple really. All fire is hot. A slippery slope is slippery and circles, well, they are quite circular."
The Story of the Herd...
There was the Herd. It calmly grazed as it always had.
A Rancher road over the hill and into their valley one day. He had many cattle prods and some branding irons from driving cattle. He tried to lead the Herd over the hill to where green pastures and clean still waters were. But the Herd was hard to herd! He poked and prodded but the Herd just mooed loudly about it.
Then uneasy, they mooed to each other, "Moo." "Moo, moo?" "Moooo."
When translated this means,"Sniff my butt."
"Does it stink?"
"Nooo."
So the Herd just kept sniffing each others butts and going in circles. But the Rancher saw a big cow, it had calves sucking its teats for milk! So he figured, "Hmmm, if I get the big cow maybe all the calves will follow." So he took out a brand and put it in the fire, its symbol was a cross. He got it white hot. Then, sizzzzle....right on the big cow's butt! "MOOOOO!" Which, when translated means, "OUCH!"
The big cow ran around in circles for a bit after this. The calves ran after it trying to get hooked up with a teat again for more sweet, sweet milk of the teat. But the big cow stayed in the valley it was in. So the Herd did too, just as they always had.
The Rancher thought, "Maybe it will be a holy cow one day." He chuckled, "Sure was a mad cow then, though..."
The Herd had settled back down to chew its cud. But it chewed its own crud, crud that was all in the mud. For the valley it was in was not green, it was a valley in the shadow of death.
"The European disguises himself with morality because he has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal that has good reasons for being "tame," for he is almost an abortion, scarce half made up, weak, awkward...It is not the ferocity of the beast of prey that requires a moral disguise but the herd animal with its profound mediocrity, timidity, and boredom with itself."
--Nietzsche
A Rancher road over the hill and into their valley one day. He had many cattle prods and some branding irons from driving cattle. He tried to lead the Herd over the hill to where green pastures and clean still waters were. But the Herd was hard to herd! He poked and prodded but the Herd just mooed loudly about it.
Then uneasy, they mooed to each other, "Moo." "Moo, moo?" "Moooo."
When translated this means,"Sniff my butt."
"Does it stink?"
"Nooo."
So the Herd just kept sniffing each others butts and going in circles. But the Rancher saw a big cow, it had calves sucking its teats for milk! So he figured, "Hmmm, if I get the big cow maybe all the calves will follow." So he took out a brand and put it in the fire, its symbol was a cross. He got it white hot. Then, sizzzzle....right on the big cow's butt! "MOOOOO!" Which, when translated means, "OUCH!"
The big cow ran around in circles for a bit after this. The calves ran after it trying to get hooked up with a teat again for more sweet, sweet milk of the teat. But the big cow stayed in the valley it was in. So the Herd did too, just as they always had.
The Rancher thought, "Maybe it will be a holy cow one day." He chuckled, "Sure was a mad cow then, though..."
The Herd had settled back down to chew its cud. But it chewed its own crud, crud that was all in the mud. For the valley it was in was not green, it was a valley in the shadow of death.
"The European disguises himself with morality because he has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal that has good reasons for being "tame," for he is almost an abortion, scarce half made up, weak, awkward...It is not the ferocity of the beast of prey that requires a moral disguise but the herd animal with its profound mediocrity, timidity, and boredom with itself."
--Nietzsche
Little Timmy's story....
One day, little Timmy's mommy told him to go into the back yard and rake all the leaves up. Now, little Timmy did not want to rake all the leaves up! So instead, he went off and played in the woods. He came back inside. His mom looked out and said, "I thought I told you to rake all the leaves up!" But he said, "Well, I did and they all blew back around because of the wind. What an unfortunate thing to happen by chance, poor me!"
He thought he was a smart one. But his mommy, she was pretty smart too! So she went out and looked at the leaves carefully. Then, she looked at the edge of the yard where it was a little wet.
And there she saw a foot print or two in wet leaves, just a few but also pointing to the woods.... Little Timmy got a spanking! For his mommy could recognize what could happen by happenstance and what would not.
He thought he was a smart one. But his mommy, she was pretty smart too! So she went out and looked at the leaves carefully. Then, she looked at the edge of the yard where it was a little wet.
And there she saw a foot print or two in wet leaves, just a few but also pointing to the woods.... Little Timmy got a spanking! For his mommy could recognize what could happen by happenstance and what would not.
The Parable of the Southerner, revisited and revised,
Once upon a time there was a young man who lived in the South. His brother was an abolitionist always flaming away at people and writing pamphlets. But he, on the other hand, well he was nice. He knew this was so because he looked nice and spent his time being nice. He went to parties and made friends. He was handsome and with his dainty hand he put on some perfume, then took a sip from his snifter, then put some snuff in his mouth. He looked at a slave and thought, "Hmmm, they look like an animal. But look at me and how good I am." Then he looked through his family portraits and thought, "How nice!"
There was something niggling in the back of his mind, the type of things that his brother would write. Writing was just words, though....he tried to put them out of his mind and so another image came to his mind, "Maybe my brother is just a stinky animal too. But how nice I must be, for do I not look like it!" Then with his dainty, oh so dainty hands he pushed his long hair back and put on some more perfume. How nice! He went out to the stables and got a slave to get his nice horse ready. It was a beauty. He thought, "Look at my beautiful horse....but the slave, he is ugly."
Then he got on his nice fast horse and road quite fast. He was very vain about this too. He came up behind a poor person riding their nag. The intersection was clear, so why didn't they go, go! But no, their nag did not move. It was a slow nag. So he had to swerve his nice horsey into the ditch and off the young man fell, down into the mud. His horse had thrown a horseshoe and almost broke its leg too. So he walked it back to the stables. It would take a little while to heal his horsey.
There was a second Southerner who was friends with the first. He was even more vain than the first. He wore a big whig. He thought he was a big whig. He read some abolitionists pamphlets and thought, "How intolerant of our way of life, why do they not try to see things from our side?" Then, he read other pamphlets about the latest scientific findings about slaves. He thought, "See how open-minded I am. I read the science of things. Science proves that slaves are inferior and the Bible agrees."
Then, with his dainty, dainty hands which had some dainty gloves on them he took a sip of wine. He thought, "There now, that is settled. Look at how nice I am to care for my slaves." Then he picked up the abolitionist's pamphlets and thought, "What religious zealots, trying to control me." Then he threw them in the fireplace. He turned and walked back to his chair to read something else. He opened a letter and read that his vain friend had run his horse into a ditch. He said, "Oh no, that's not nice!"
Behind him, one of the pages of the pamphlets he had thrown in the fire blew back out. In fact, it had caught the carpets on fire. The flame licked up the back of his chair to his big whig! It was actually quite flammable! He died in the fire and the slaves which he thought he treated so nicely ran away to freedom.
A fragment of the charred page which had burned the house down blew in the wind. Across the top of it the words of the abolitionist were written: ""Veritas vos Liberabit!"
The Truth shall set you free!
There was something niggling in the back of his mind, the type of things that his brother would write. Writing was just words, though....he tried to put them out of his mind and so another image came to his mind, "Maybe my brother is just a stinky animal too. But how nice I must be, for do I not look like it!" Then with his dainty, oh so dainty hands he pushed his long hair back and put on some more perfume. How nice! He went out to the stables and got a slave to get his nice horse ready. It was a beauty. He thought, "Look at my beautiful horse....but the slave, he is ugly."
Then he got on his nice fast horse and road quite fast. He was very vain about this too. He came up behind a poor person riding their nag. The intersection was clear, so why didn't they go, go! But no, their nag did not move. It was a slow nag. So he had to swerve his nice horsey into the ditch and off the young man fell, down into the mud. His horse had thrown a horseshoe and almost broke its leg too. So he walked it back to the stables. It would take a little while to heal his horsey.
There was a second Southerner who was friends with the first. He was even more vain than the first. He wore a big whig. He thought he was a big whig. He read some abolitionists pamphlets and thought, "How intolerant of our way of life, why do they not try to see things from our side?" Then, he read other pamphlets about the latest scientific findings about slaves. He thought, "See how open-minded I am. I read the science of things. Science proves that slaves are inferior and the Bible agrees."
Then, with his dainty, dainty hands which had some dainty gloves on them he took a sip of wine. He thought, "There now, that is settled. Look at how nice I am to care for my slaves." Then he picked up the abolitionist's pamphlets and thought, "What religious zealots, trying to control me." Then he threw them in the fireplace. He turned and walked back to his chair to read something else. He opened a letter and read that his vain friend had run his horse into a ditch. He said, "Oh no, that's not nice!"
Behind him, one of the pages of the pamphlets he had thrown in the fire blew back out. In fact, it had caught the carpets on fire. The flame licked up the back of his chair to his big whig! It was actually quite flammable! He died in the fire and the slaves which he thought he treated so nicely ran away to freedom.
A fragment of the charred page which had burned the house down blew in the wind. Across the top of it the words of the abolitionist were written: ""Veritas vos Liberabit!"
The Truth shall set you free!
Thursday, February 03, 2005
An old parable, in honor of the superbowl...
Men meet on the grid of iron, iron! So they all know the rules and lines as men like to know. They know what lines to cross and which not to. They were taught the rules of the lines. This is what figures. There is no one there to ask about their figure, "How's my figure?" For that's a hard sort of figure to figure out. Although one might like to do some figuring on it.
But no, on the grid, it all figures. Will players seek to bend the rules? Will it be those weaker of them? Will they be caught if they do?
Tweet, tweet! Yes, someone has been caught. He was offsides. Look at this wretch who was not on his own side of the line. He says, "Don't be intolerant, I just wanted to see things from all sides....man." But no one listens to his excuse. For he had violated the law, a law like iron. He was off his own side for all to see.
Just which side was he playing for, anyway? The men who were at his side look at him. One whispers, "Somehow, he just looks like he wants to play for the other side." Another says, "Yeah, I thought he was a little too nicey nice with the pats on the butt all the time too!" That law breaker and blurrer! Now he must see things from the side again, the side line. So he goes off of the gridiron. For he would break the grid.
The offense tries to move down the field but the good guy's side intercepts their deeply offensive attempt. So the offense is turned on its head by a very fast good guy. He runs down the field, faking them all out. He has not broken the law of the grid of iron with his interception, not at all.
So he runs, he scores, as the cloud of witnesses all around watching goes wild!
(And so, the Eagles win....on a wing and a prayer, as the birds of prey must pray.)
But no, on the grid, it all figures. Will players seek to bend the rules? Will it be those weaker of them? Will they be caught if they do?
Tweet, tweet! Yes, someone has been caught. He was offsides. Look at this wretch who was not on his own side of the line. He says, "Don't be intolerant, I just wanted to see things from all sides....man." But no one listens to his excuse. For he had violated the law, a law like iron. He was off his own side for all to see.
Just which side was he playing for, anyway? The men who were at his side look at him. One whispers, "Somehow, he just looks like he wants to play for the other side." Another says, "Yeah, I thought he was a little too nicey nice with the pats on the butt all the time too!" That law breaker and blurrer! Now he must see things from the side again, the side line. So he goes off of the gridiron. For he would break the grid.
The offense tries to move down the field but the good guy's side intercepts their deeply offensive attempt. So the offense is turned on its head by a very fast good guy. He runs down the field, faking them all out. He has not broken the law of the grid of iron with his interception, not at all.
So he runs, he scores, as the cloud of witnesses all around watching goes wild!
(And so, the Eagles win....on a wing and a prayer, as the birds of prey must pray.)
What is to be done, with the One?
The bibliolaters put Him in the Bible and thump, thump, thump. He likes not such thumping.
The philosophers seek to put Him in their own brains. Tap, tap, the One is all here, here in the head. Boom! It rains brains.
The cold toads seek to put Him in Nature and call what they do science. Booom! Everyone dies in a nuclear explosion. They give everyone bigger and bigger weapons even as they undermine civilization and work to create animalization. Are they smart or not, that's not smart! Their glasses grow thicker and thicker, their vision smaller and smaller. So get out your microscope before your mind disappears. They will not see the big picture.
They look up from the microscope and all its jots and tittles of the Code as one says to the other,
"Is it a jot?"
"No...looks like a tittle to me."
"How titillating!"
"Hey, let's put it in a test tube to test this tittle's titillation!"
Then they go home and read comic books. Later...here comes Ape-man in his series of images to save the day! Ape-man, but he is missing in action! Where is this mystery man? The meek, they must find him! They seek him, he is their hero. But they cannot find him. So they write a comic book about Ape-man, their hero.
But they do not call it a comic book. Instead, they call it a textbook.
The philosophers seek to put Him in their own brains. Tap, tap, the One is all here, here in the head. Boom! It rains brains.
The cold toads seek to put Him in Nature and call what they do science. Booom! Everyone dies in a nuclear explosion. They give everyone bigger and bigger weapons even as they undermine civilization and work to create animalization. Are they smart or not, that's not smart! Their glasses grow thicker and thicker, their vision smaller and smaller. So get out your microscope before your mind disappears. They will not see the big picture.
They look up from the microscope and all its jots and tittles of the Code as one says to the other,
"Is it a jot?"
"No...looks like a tittle to me."
"How titillating!"
"Hey, let's put it in a test tube to test this tittle's titillation!"
Then they go home and read comic books. Later...here comes Ape-man in his series of images to save the day! Ape-man, but he is missing in action! Where is this mystery man? The meek, they must find him! They seek him, he is their hero. But they cannot find him. So they write a comic book about Ape-man, their hero.
But they do not call it a comic book. Instead, they call it a textbook.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Not much to write today...
I just got back from Virginia, helping my dad put in pilings for a dock. For me, writing typically does not take all that long but I'm just too tired tonight.
One note, another windsurfer e-mailed me about a few things on here and it turns out that he has his own site. I had wondered sometimes about what I'd do with windsurfing if I lost a limb. Now I know, get some advice from a guy like that and keep on windsurfing. That's nice to know.
You have to like a paragraph about a prosthetic limb that ends with, "Oh, and I always carry a can of WD-40 in my truck."
One note, another windsurfer e-mailed me about a few things on here and it turns out that he has his own site. I had wondered sometimes about what I'd do with windsurfing if I lost a limb. Now I know, get some advice from a guy like that and keep on windsurfing. That's nice to know.
You have to like a paragraph about a prosthetic limb that ends with, "Oh, and I always carry a can of WD-40 in my truck."
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Sheesh!
I'm on my laptop and it seems that it may be too slow to get anything done here today. I was going to update the parable of the biologists but that blogger page doesn't want to load. I'd hate to leave Melody in suspense, after all. I should ask what her hair color is.
Well, maybe tomorrow....when I'm back on the good old broadband. This makes me wonder how anyone can use dialup.
______
Okay, it did work. So that has been updated. It turned into something more like a rough draft.
Well, maybe tomorrow....when I'm back on the good old broadband. This makes me wonder how anyone can use dialup.
______
Okay, it did work. So that has been updated. It turned into something more like a rough draft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)