Excerpts from The Dispossessed

Page 86
"... No heat was furnished when the outside temperature went above 55 degrees Fahrenheit. It was not that Abbenay was short of power, not with her wind heating; but the principle of organic economy was too essential to the functioning of society not to affect ethics and aesthetics profoundly. "Excess is excrement," Odo wrote in the Analogy. "Excrement retained in the body is a poison."

Page 103
"So they had bargained, he and Sabul, bargained like profiteers. It had not been a battle, but a sale. You give me this and I'll give you that. Refuse me and I'll refuse you. Sold? Sold! Shevek's career, like the existence of his society, depended on the continuance of a fundamental, unadmitted profit contract. Not a relationship of mutual aid and solidarity, but an exploitative relationship; not organic, but mechanical. Can true function arise from basic dysfunction?"

Page 115
"The whole experience had been so bewildering to him that he put it out of mind as soon as possible, but he had dreams about it for months afterwards, nightmares. Saemtenevia Prospect was two miles long, and it was a solid mass of people, traffic, and things: things to buy, things for sale ... everything either useless to begin with or ornamented so as to disguise its use; acres of luxuries, acres of excrement.

"And the strangest thing about the nightmare street was that none of the millions of things for sale were made there. They were only sold there. Where were the workshops, the factories, where were the farmers, the craftsmen, the miners, the weavers, the chemists, the carvers, the dyers, the designers, the machinists, where were the hands of the people who made? Out of sight, somewhere else. Behind walls. All the people in all the shops were either buyers or sellers. They had no relation to the things but that of possession."

Is "Someone" not an Evangelical?

Contained below is a portion from Dr. Richard Land's blog entry 'Why I'm not signing the 'Evangelical Manifesto'. The text below can be read in its entirety here. (Any bolded or italicized text is my own emphasis).

Dr. Land:

"What are my problems with the statement? Let us begin with a basic, foundational theological question. The Manifesto affirms that “Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.” That is surely true, but it is also hopefully true of all the many followers of Jesus who would never call themselves, or desire to be called, Evangelicals.

The Manifesto then enunciates several beliefs that Evangelicals “have prized above all” and that they “consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus and therefore foundational for us.” The Manifesto then asserts that “the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life ‘from above.’”

When I read that statement I say, “Amen.” Then I ask myself, “Why ‘foundational for us’ instead of ending with ‘foundational’? And why ‘our acceptance’ rather than ‘the only ground for acceptance by God’?”

Could this be an attempt to qualify the most basic of all evangelical foundational beliefs, Jesus’ assertion that “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)? I could not help but notice that when the Manifesto quoted this verse several paragraphs earlier in the document, the drafters omitted the last half of the verse: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Why?

Is this just verbal imprecision, or is it something more? I know the majority of the drafters and the original signees, and I know that they are “exclusivists” — people who believe that for all men everywhere there is only salvation in personal faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16). However, I know at least one original signee to be a non-exclusivist. The question must be asked, and asked clearly and directly — does An Evangelical Manifesto believe that salvation for all men everywhere is through personal faith in Jesus and only Jesus?

Further, can someone believe something other than “exclusivism” concerning salvation and still be an evangelical? This evangelical’s answer to that question is, and always will be, “No!”"

-----------------

I must first note two things: First, that I respect and understand where this writer is coming from; and also that I respect that Dr. Land chose not to actually name the person he considered a Non-Exclusivist.

I'm assuming that the "original signees" Dr. Land is referring to is, or includes, the Steering Committee, which is comprised of Timothy George, Os Guinness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, Jesse Miranda, David Neff, Richard Ohman, Larry Ross and Dallas Willard. Given Dr. Land's definition of a Non-Exclusivist, I would say at least one person on this list fits that definition (though I must mention I only know the general beliefs of two of the men on the Steering Committee).

Anyone who reads this and knows me is probably also aware of who is probably being called a Non-Exclusivist. So my questions are:

1. Is there a clear definition of what an Evangelical is?

A lot of Reformed and Mainline Protestants might not consider themselves Evangelicals, while there are actually some Catholics who call themselves by that name. I would generally define the term Evangelical as referring to people who would identify with the basic tenets of "The Fundamentals", and who identify with the basic tenets of a modern conservative Protestant domination, such as the need for personal conversion, the Bible as the highest authority, etc.

2. (a.) If an Evangelical cannot be a Non-Exclusivist, can any Christian be a Non-Exclusivist (as defined by Dr. Land),

(b.) or have such persons passed from difference of opinion into heresy?

I don't know what the history of interpretations has been on this matter, but I guess there has probably been debate on it previous to the last couple weeks.

3. If I'm right about who that "Someone" is, should Someone be referred to as an Evangelical?

My answers would be: 1, Kinda; 2(a.), Yes; 2(b.), No; 3, Yes, if they are willing to still be called by that title.

Anyone else have an opinion?

Concerning the Internet, Researching Nazi Occultism, and the Online edition of the Liberty Champion

Two semesters ago I was given a history assignment, with the goal of researching a historical event/period using only the internet. The topic my group chose was "WWII" (a very specific and narrow topic). Every group member got to choose their own subcategory. I chose Nazi Occultism.

I'm not sure what the lesson of that online-only assignment was, but it did teach me that there is a lot of crap on the Internet. The number of 10+ year old geocity, earthlink, and homestead sites concerning Nazi Occultism, Historical-Revisionism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Religionism, Anti-Evolutionism, and a number of other poorly-cited subjects -- many of them defined in the negative -- was astounding.

And the text was always finely paired with an appropriate aesthetic, with many of the early-day web publishers employing such techniques as colored backgrounds, multi-colored text, multiple fonts on the same page, non-working hyperlinks, and lots of animated gifs, often in columns or rows.

While I think our project ended up being a poor excuse for a history presentation, I think it did achieve her other goal: teaching students that if you only have one resource for real research, it should not be the Internet.

On a similar note, let me quickly address some issues I recently found on the Online edition of the Liberty Champion.

Whoever is the site's webmaster is poorly qualified. They do not know how to integrate their stories online without random HTML code showing up. The stories that don't have HTML paragraph breaks have no paragraph breaks. And don't forget the spelling errors; I found the following ones by searching under headlines alone: (Ashville is Asheville; Fadford is Radford; elecrtic is electric, etc).

For such errors a website is the most forgiving format, as it can be edited at any time -- Even The Washington Post sometimes has errors, but they are always corrected within an hour or so. If the text online is the exact same as the print copy's, most of the Liberty Champion staff need to reexamine their career goals.

MS

Morgan Stanley chief says global credit crisis may be waning reports Bloomberg News and the AP.

Keypoints:

- "I don't know if this is the bottom or close to the bottom, but at some point it will be wise to invest there," - John Mack, Chief Executive of Morgan Stanley.

- "The bank wrote down billions of dollars worth of securities linked to risky subprime mortgages and other debt since last year."

- "... the firm's overall compensation and benefits expenses rose 18 percent in 2007 even though revenue dropped 6 percent."

------------------------------------------

I'm holding my breath on all that. I can imagine things "righting themselves" in the short-term. Long term is another story.

Blurbs

It's come to my own attention that it's been a long while since I've been able to come up with a particular topic of which I could comment on at length. This is probably due to a number of things, such as too much blog reading, too much multitasking, being employed in a data-entry job, being out of an academic environment, being in less contact with people who are thoughtful, not caring to write things purely for my own pleasure, etc.

While knowledge is a good within itself, I feel it needs to be applied, or it is loses a lot of its value (or at least appears to). So, I find myself in a bind that I'm learning quite a bit, considering my current circumstances, but with little room for application. Hopefully my non-paid employment situation will help solve this problem.

Realizing that I didn't fall asleep until at least 2:30 am (which is extremely late for me now), and that I did wake up at 7:20am, I'm tired now. Later I might be able to focus on a topic of which to write later on, but not for the moment.

Future topics I should write on:
-Connection between Childhood's End and Evangelion, (and Ghost in the Shell)and if Clarke really believed in all that modern mysticism.
-What will be the biggest issues for the next president.
-Why no president, without overriding the Constitution 10x more than any previous president, will be able to fix America in four, eight, or twelve years (for if Obama is the next FDR).
-Why any president who does override the Constitution that much will probably contribute to ever-growing number of "alarmist" media to contain "The End of" in their title, with this book being titled The End of America.
(Update: I just found out there already is a The End of America, which "is a harbinger of an age that may finally see the patriarchal realm of political discourse usurped.")
-Figuring out how much oil is being used to create alternative energy; figuring out if any alternative energy is being used to create alternative energy; figuring out how much of the problems are infrastructure-related, etc.
-Thinking the government should take all the money they plan on investing in alternative energy and instead invest it in the "Modern Amish" (Amish who own washing machines), since that is probably the real direction of where we are heading.

What's been going on?

A bunch of little things.

I'm working at BIA Financial Network. It consists of typing data into a data base. I gather data by phone, and by internet. I also sit at the front desk as an "administrative assistant" from approximately 1:30 - 2:40 everyday, which means I answer the phone, and read news and stuff.

I'm riding my bike more, reading more fiction, and getting more sun (in that order). I'm now a "2" instead of a "1" on the numerical skin pigmentation chart.

I start my internship in about one month. It will be with the communication department of the USCIRF, and it's the first time I'm actually applying Academic Information in the work environment. It's going to be good, except that I need to get on the ball and prepare for it, as I have not done any AP style writing in about a year.

Things sold include a weight rack; model gun; AC adapter; various SNES games. Current profits: around $250 - 300 -- my mom has made $1200, so far. And don't forget extra space, no extra mercury in my water from thrown away electronics, and less drugstore.com boxes.

That's all I got to say for now.

Whiting while having Write Ale.

I am by no means an economist. I recently acquired a Bachelor's of Arts in Communications with a specialization in Journalism. This basically means that I know how to write, kind of. I know how to write in "AP Style," and in the "inverted pyramid style -- a form of writing specifically designed for the Civil War that, for various reasons, has become the format of choice for "hard print news." There are reasons this format is appropriate at times, but it is not ideal. That the inverted pyramid style is the pinnacle of our current Media -- as far as depth and quality is concerned -- is unfortunate. What's more unfortunate is that television news or no news is what most people are using to make their decisions. That and commercials.

So, back to the economy.

I am not an economist. I have no idea how our current fiscal situation is going to play out. I know that energy prices are rising, which translates as all prices going up on basically everything. The value of the dollar is turning to crap. Recently I've seen mainstream newspaper business section openly question fundamental questions, like if globalized capitalism is actually a good idea, or if centralized banks are a good idea. There have basically been three propositions/solutions that I've heard that people are offering to fix the economy.

#1: The economy is fundamentally sound. The market goes in trends, so it will fix itself. We will go through a short period of "slow growth," but it won't be a recession, because we don't curse in this house.

#2: Have a super-strong, effective centralized government that "gets things done." I almost have sympathy for a short-term socialism that would make some policies to take on the various companies that need regulating. The only thing is that one of the main reasons so many of these companies have taken over the market is because the government subsidizes them. Also the fact that I don't have confidence that the kind of regulations we will probably get will really address our fundamental issues.

#3: Move away from globalized capitalism. I've actually heard some mainstream new sources mention this. They never go as far to define what such a change would look like, or how we would shift into such a different environment.

We will probably get #2, which is an appropriate pun.

Eggs and Skepticism

"... Against all this the philosophy of St. Thomas stands founded on the universal common conviction that eggs are eggs. The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming; the Berkeleian may hold that poached eggs only exist as a dream exists; since it is quite as easy to call the dream the cause of the eggs as the eggs the cause of the dream; the Pragmatist may believe that we get the best out of scrambled egos by forgetting that they ever were eggs, and only remembering the scramble. But no pupil of St. Thomas needs to addle his brains in order adequately to addle his eggs; to put his head at any peculiar angle in looking at eggs, or squinting at eggs, or winking the other eye in order to see a new simplification of eggs. The Thomist stands in the broad daylight of the brotherhood of men, in their common consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or mere practical assumptions; but things attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God.

Thus, even those who appreciate the metaphysical depth of Thomism in other matters have expressed surprise that he does not deal at all with what many now think the main metaphysical question; whether we can prove that the primary act of recognition of any reality is real. The answer is that St. Thomas recognised instantly, what so many modern sceptics have begun to suspect rather laboriously; that a man must either answer that question in the affirmative, or else never answer any question, never ask any question, never even exist intellectually, to answer or to ask. I suppose it is true in a sense that a man can be a fundamental sceptic, but he cannot be anything else; certainly not even a defender of fundamental scepticism. If a man feels that all the movements of his own mind are meaningless, then his mind is meaningless, and he is meaningless; and it does not mean anything to attempt to discover his meaning. Most fundamental sceptics appear to survive, because they are not consistently sceptical and not at all fundamental. They will first deny everything and then admit something, if for the sake of argument - or often rather of attack without argument. I saw an almost startling example of this essential frivolity in the professor of final scepticism, in a paper the other day. A man wrote to say that he accepted nothing but Solipsism, and added that he had often wondered it was not a more common philosophy. Now Solipsism simply means that a man believes in his own existence, but not in anybody or anything else. And it never struck this simple sophist, that if his philosophy was true, there obviously were no other philosophers to profess it.

To this question "Is there anything?" St. Thomas begins by answering "Yes"; if he began by answering "No", it would not be the beginning, but the end. That is what some of us call common sense. Either there is no philosophy, no philosophers, no thinkers, no thought, no anything; or else there is a real bridge between the mind and reality. But he is actually less exacting than many thinkers, much less so than most rationalist and materialist thinkers, as to what that first step involves; he is content, as we shall see, to say that it involves the recognition of Ens or Being as something definitely beyond ourselves. Ens is Ens: Eggs are eggs, and it is not tenable that all eggs were found in a mare's nest."

Thomas Aquinas, by G. K. C.

Why a pumpkin keeps on being a pumpkin (The Blatchford Controversies)

Mr. Blatchford has summed up all that is important in his whole position in three sentences. They are perfectly honest and clear. Nor are they any the less honest and clear because the first two of them are falsehoods and the third is a fallacy. He says "The Christian denies the miracles of the Mahommedan. The Mahommedan denies the miracles of the Christian. The Rationalist denies all miracles alike."

The historical error in the first two remarks I will deal with shortly. I confine myself for the moment to the courageous admission of Mr. Blatchford that the Rationalist denies all miracles alike. He does not question them. He does not pretend to be agnostic about them. He does not suspend his judgment until they shall be proved. He denies them.

Faced with this astounding dogma I asked Mr. Blatchford why he thought miracles would not occur. He replied that the Universe was governed by laws. Obviously this answer is of no use whatever. For we cannot call a thing impossible because the world is governed by laws, unless we know what laws. Does Mr. Blatchford know all about all the laws in the Universe? And if he does not know about the laws how can he possibly know anything about the exceptions?

For, obviously, the mere fact that a thing happens seldom, under odd circumstances and with no explanation within our knowledge, is no proof that it is against natural law. That would apply to the Siamese twins, or to a new comet, or to radium three years ago.

The philosophical case against miracles is somewhat easily dealt with. There is no philosophical case against miracles. There are such things as the laws of Nature rationally speaking. What everybodyknows is this only. That there is repetition in nature. What everybody knows is that pumpkins produce pumpkins. What nobody knows is why they should not produce elephants and giraffes.

There is one philosophical question about miracles and only one. Many able modern Rationalists cannot apparently even get it into their heads. The poorest lad at Oxford in the Middle Ages would have understood it. (Note. As the last sentence will seem
strange in our "enlightened" age I may explain that under "the cruel reign of mediaeval superstition," poor lads were educated at Oxford to a most reckless extent. Thank God, we live in better days.)

The question of miracles is merely this. Do you know why a pumpkin goes on being a pumpkin? If you do not, you cannot possibly tell whether a pumpkin could turn into a coach or couldn't. That is all.

All the other scientific expressions you are in the habit of using at breakfast are words and winds. You say "It is a law of nature that pumpkins should remain pumpkins." That only means that pumpkins generally do remain pumpkins, which is obvious; it does not say why. You say "Experience is against it." That only means, "I have known many pumpkins intimately and none of them turned into coaches."

There was a great Irish Rationalist of this school (possibly related to Mr. Lecky), who when he was told that a witness had seen him commit murder said that he could bring a hundred witnesses who had not seen him commit it.

You say "The modern world is against it." That means that a mob of men in London and Birmingham, and Chicago, in a thoroughly pumpkiny state of mind, cannot work miracles by faith.

You say "Science is against it." That means that so long as pumpkins are pumpkins their conduct is pumpkiny, and bears no resemblance to the conduct of a coach. That is fairly obvious.
What Christianity says is merely this. That this repetition in Nature has its origin not in a thing resembling a law but a thing resembling a will. Of course its phase of a Heavenly Father is drawn from an earthly father. Quite equally Mr. Blatchford's phase of a universal law is a metaphor from an Act of Parliament. But Christianity holds that the world and its repetition came by will or Love as children are begotten by a father, and therefore that other and different things might come by it. Briefly, it believes that a God who could do anything so extraordinary as making pumpkins go on being pumpkins, is like the prophet, Habbakuk, . If you do not think it extraordinary that a pumpkin is always a pumpkin, think again. You have not yet even begun philosophy. You have not even seen a pumpkin.

The historic case against miracles is also rather simple. It consists of calling miracles impossible, then saying that no one but a fool believes impossibilities: then declaring that there is no wise evidence on behalf of the miraculous. The whole trick is done by means of leaning alternately on the philosophical and historical objection. If we say miracles are theoretically possible, they say, "Yes, but there is no evidence for them." When we take all the records of the human race and say, "Here is your evidence," they say, "But these people were superstitious, they believed in impossible things."

The real question is whether our little Oxford Street civilisation is certain to be right and the rest of the world certain to be wrong. Mr. Blatchford thinks that the materialism of nineteenth century Westerns is one of their noble discoveries. I think it is as dull as their coats, as dirty as their streets, as ugly as their trousers, and as stupid as their industrial system.

Mr. Blatchford himself, however, has summed up perfectly his pathetic faith in modern civilisation. He has written a very amusing description of how difficult it would be to persuade an English judge in a modern law court of the truth of the Resurrection. Of course he is quite right; it would be impossible.

But it does not seem to occur to him that we Christians may not have such an extravagant reverence for English judges as is felt by Mr. Blatchford himself.
The experiences of the Founder of Christianity have perhaps left us in a vague doubt of the infallibility of courts of law. I know quite well that nothing would induce a British judge to believe that a man had risen from the dead. But then I know quite as well that a very little while ago nothing would have induced a British judge to believe that a Socialist could be a good man. A judge would refuse to believe in new spiritual wonders. But this would not be because he was a judge, but because he was, besides being a judge, an English gentleman, a modern Rationalist, and something of an old fool.

And Mr. Blatchford is quite wrong in supposing that the Christian and the Moslem deny each other's miracles. No religion that thinks itself true bothers about the miracles of another religion. It denies the doctrines of the religion; it denies its morals; but it never thinks it worth while to deny its signs and wonders.

And why not? Because these things some men have always thought possible. Because any wandering gipsy may have Psychical powers. Because the general existence of a world of spirits and of strange mental powers is a part of the common sense of all mankind. The Pharisees did not dispute the miracles of Christ; they said they were worked by devilry. The Christians did not dispute the miracles of Mahomed. They said they were worked by devilry. The Roman world did not deny the possibility that Christ was a God. It was far too enlightened for that.

In so far as the Church did (chiefly during the corrupt and sceptical eighteenth century) urge miracles as a reason for belief, her fault is evident: but it is not what Mr. Blatchford supposes. It is not that she asked men to believe anything so incredible; it is that she asked men to be converted by anything so commonplace.

What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God - the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about
Christianity.

Forethought in action; Read the Holy Scriptures

We ought not to believe every saying or suggestion but ought warily and patiently to ponder the matter with reference to God. But alas, such is our weakness, that we often believe and speak evil of others rather than good! Good men do not easily give credit to every tale; for they know that human infirmity is prone to evil (Gen. 8:21) , and very subject to offend in words (James 3:2) .

It is great wisdom not to stand obstinately in your own conceits. It belongs also to this same wisdom not to believe everything you hear, or to pour into the ears of others (Prov. 17:9) what you have heard of believed. Consult with a man who is wise and conscientious and seek to be instructed by one better than yourself, rather than to follow your own inventions (Prov. 12:15) .

A good life makes a man wise according to God (Prov. 15:33) , and gives him experience in many things (Eccles. 1:16) . The humbler a man is in himself, and the more resigned to God, the more prudent will he be in all things, and the more at peace.

-------------

Truth is to be sought for in the Holy Scriptures, not eloquence. Holy Scripture ought to be read with the same spirit wherewith it was written (Rom. 15:4) . We should rather search after profit in the Scriptures than subtilty of speech.

We ought to read devout and simple books as willingly as the high and profound. Let not the authority of the writer offend you, whether he be of great or small learning; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read (1 Cor. 2:4) . Search not who spoke this or that, but mark what is spoken. Men pass away, but "the truth of the Lord endureth forever" (Ps. 117:2) . God speaks to us in sundry ways, without respect to persons (Rom. 2:11; 10:12) .

Our own curiousity often hinders us in the reading of the Scriptures, when we desire to understand and discuss that which we should instead pass over. If you desire to reap profit, read with humility, simplicity, and faithfulness; nor ever desire the reputation of learning. Inqiure willingly, and hear with silence the words of holy men. Let not the teachings of the elders displease you, for they are not recounted without cause (Eccles. 12:9) .

- Thomas of Kempis

Doctrine of Truth

Blessed is the man whom thou . . . teachest . . . out of thy law (Ps. 94:12) , not by figures and words that pass away, but as it is in itself. Our own opinion and our own sense often deceive us, and they discern but little.

What avails great cailing and disputing about dark and hidden things (Eccles. 3:9-11) , concerning which we shall not be reproved in the Judgment because we knew them not? It is great folly to neglect the things that are profitable and necessary, and to give our minds to things curious and hurtful: Eyes have they, but see they not (Ps. 115:5; Mark 8:18) . And what have we to do with genus and species? He to whom the eternal Word speaks is set free from many opinions. From that one Word are all things and all things speak; and this is the beginning, which also speaks to us. No man without that understands or judges rightly. He to whom all things are one, and who draws all things to one, and see all things in one, can be steadfast in heart, and peaceable repose in God.

O God, who are the truth, make me one with Thee in continual love! I am weary often to read and hear many things. In Thee is all that I desire and long for. Let all teachers hold their peace; let all creatures be silent in Thy sight; speak to me alone.

The more a man is at one within himself, and becomes single in heart, so much the more and higher things does he understand without labor; for he receives the light of understanding from above (Luke 10:21) . A pure, sincere, and stable spirit is not distracted in a multitude of affairs, for it works all to the honor of God, and inwardly strives to be at rest from all self-seeking. Who hinders and troubles you more than the unmortified affections of your own heart? A good and devout man prepares beforehand the works which he is to do before the world. Neither do they draw him according to the desires of a sinful inclination, but he himself orders them according to the decision of right reason. Who has a harder struggle than he who labors to conquer himself? This ought to be our endeavor to conquer ourselves, and daily to wax stronger than ourselves, and to make some progress for good.

All perfection in this life has some imperfection bound up in it; and no knowledge of ours is without some darkness. A humble knowledge of self is a surer way to God than a deep search after learning. Yet learning is not to be blamed, nor the mere knowledge of anything whatsoever, for knowledge is good, considered in itself, and ordained by God; but a good conscience and a virtuous life are always to be preferred before it. But because many endeavor rather to know that to live well, therefore they are often deceived, and reap either none, or scanty fruit.

Oh, if men bestowed as much labor in the rooting out of vices and planting of virtues as they do in proposing questions, there would neither be such evils and slanders in the world, nor so much looseness among us.

Truly, when the day of judgment comes, we shall not be examined as to what we have read, but what we have done (Matt. 25) ; not how well we have spoken, but how we have lived.

Where are now all those masters and doctors with whom you were well acquainted while they lived and flourished in learning? Now others possess their livings, and perhaps scarecely ever think of them. In their lifetime they seemed to be somewhat, but now they are not spoken of. How quickly the glory of the world passes away (Eccles. 2:11) !

Oh, that their lives had been answerable to their learning! Then had their study and reading been to good purpose. How many perish by reason of vain learning (Titus 1:10, 11) in this world, who take little care of the serving of God! And because they rather choose to be great than humble, therefore they come to naught in their imaginations (Rom. 1:21) .

He is truly great, who is great in love. He is truly great who is little in himself, and who makes no account of any height of honor (Matt. 23:11) . He is truly wise who accounts all earthly things "but dung, that [he] may win Christ" (Phil. 3:8) . And he is truly very learned who does the will of God and forsakes his own will.

- Thomas of Kempis

Humble Conceit of Ourselves

Every man naturally desires to know (Eccles. 1:13) , but what does knowledge avail without the fear of God? Better, surely, is a humble laborer who serves God than a proud philosopher who, neglecting himself, studies the course of the heavens. Whoso knows himself well gr0ws mean in his own conceit, and delights not in the praises of men. If I understood all things in the world and had not love (I Cor. 13:2) , what would that help me in the sight of God, who will judge me according to my deeds?

Cease from an inordinate desire of knowing, for therein is found much distraction and deceit. The learned are well pleased to seem so to others, and to be accounted wise. There be many things, which to know does little or nothing to profit the soul. And he is very unwise, who is intent upon any things except those which avail for his salvation. Many words do not satisfy the soul; but a good life comforts the mind, and a pure conscience gives great confidence toward God.

How much the more and the better you know, so much the more rigorously shall you therefore be judged, unless your life has been the holier. Be not therefore lifted up for any art or science, but rather fear for the knowledge that is given you.

If you think that you know many things and understand them well, know also that there are many things which you know not. "Mind not high things" (Rom. 12:16) , but rather acknowledge your own ignorance. Why will you prefer yourself before another since there are many more learned, and more skillful in the law than you are? If you will know or learn anything profitably, desire to be unknown and to be esteemed as nothing.

The deepest and the most profitable lesson is the true knowledge and contempt of ourselves. It is great wisdom and high perfection to esteem nothing of ourselves, and to think always well and highly of others. If you should see another openly sin, or commit some heinous offense, you ought not to esteem yourself the better; for you know not how long you shall be able to remain in good standing. All of us are frail, but you ought not to think anyone more frail than yourself.

- Thomas of Kempis

Contempt of all the vanities of the world.

He that followeth Me, shall not walk in the darkness" (John 8:12) , saith the Lord. These are the words of Christ, by which we are admonished how we ought to imitate His life and manners, if we would be enlightened and delivered from all blindness of heart. Let therefore our chief endeavor be to meditate upon the life of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of Christ exceeds all the doctrines of holy men; and he who has the Spirit will find therin "the hidden manna" (Rev. 2:17) . But many who often hear the Gospel of Christ have little desire for it, because they "have not the Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9) . But whosoever will fully and with relish understand the words of Christ must endeavor to conform his life wholly to the life of Christ.

What does it avail to discourse profoundly of the Trinity if you are void of humility and are thereby displeasing to the Trinity? Surely profound words do not make a man holy and just; but a virtuous life makes him dear to God. I would rather feel contrition than know the definition thereof. If you knew the whole Bible by heart, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what would all that profit you without love (1 Cor. 13:2) ?

"Vanity of vanities . . . all is vanity" (Eccles. 1:2) , except to love God and serve Him only. This is the highest wisdom, by the contempt of the world to press forward toward the heavenly kingdoms.

Therefore it is vanity to seek after perishing riches and trust in them. Also it is vanity to hunt after honors and to climb to high degree. It is vanity to follow the desires of the flesh, and to long after that which you must afterward suffer grievous punishment. It is vanity to wish to live long, and to be careless to live well. It is vanity to mind only the present life, and not to see forsee those things which are to come. It is vanity to set your love on that which is speedily passes away, and not to hasten to there everlasting joy abides.

Call often to mind that proverb: "The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing (Eccles. 1:8) . Endeavor therefore to withdraw your heart from the love of visible things, and to turn your self to things invisible. For they that follow their own sensuality defile their consciences, and lose the grace of God.

- Thomas of Kempis

A Quick Observation

Tonight there was yet another campus shooting, resulting in six deaths including the shooter's.

I'd rather not dwell on this event at all, but I could not help but ponder the lack of coverage this event received in comparison to Virginia Tech. I heard a blurb about it on the radio, turned on the TV, flipped through channels, and saw... McCain... Ann Coulter ... Huckabee ... Al Sharpton. The scroller gave me one sentence about what happened, and I finally found brief coverage of it on a local news station.

I really have no idea how to judge any of this. Non-stop coverage of a school shooting is totally inappropriate, but then I was also offended that this wasn't receiving more coverage. What is the right amount of coverage for such a thing? Should it even be covered by national news? Should I be glad that this got less coverage, or should I be offended that Ann Coulter's wisdom got ten times more TV time than a horrific current event?

And having heard Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton speak within one minute of one another, and then having heard details on another copy-cat shooting -- not to mention having earlier tonight heard a story on Congo's current disaster -- all this must do horrible things to the mind. Watching all those contrasting stories, back and forth, with commercial breaks, must either make one numb to reality -- with the other option being embracing it emotionally and intellectually and becoming bipolar.

Though I suppose we can stand all things, under the right circumstances.

Democracy and Industrialism

I don't know how the following essay would appear to the typical reader. Had I first read this six years ago, and not two, I'm not sure what would have been my initial response. But I've come to a firm conclusion that this essay is true, and that certain parts of it are especially illuminating to our time. This was written 80 years ago, but Progress has only reaffirmed Chesterton's foresight:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It grows plainer, every day, that those of us who cling to crumbling creeds and dogmas, and defend the dying traditions of the Dark Ages, will soon be left alone defending the most obviously decaying of all those ancient dogmas: the idea called Democracy. It has taken not quite a lifetime, roughly my own lifetime, to bring it from the top of its success, or alleged success, to the bottom of its failure, or reputed failure. By the end of the nineteenth century, millions of men were accepting democracy without knowing why. By the end of the twentieth century, it looks as if millions of people will be rejecting democracy, also without knowing why. In such a straight, strictly logical and unwavering line does the Mind of Man advance along the great Path of Progress.

Anyhow, at the moment, democracy is not only being abused, but being very unfairly abused. Men are blaming universal suffrage, merely because they are not enlightened enough to blame original sin. There is one simple test for deciding whether popular political evils are due to original sin. And that is to do what none or very few of these modern malcontents are doing; to state any sort of moral claim for any other sort of political system. The essence of democracy is very simple and, as Jefferson said, self-evident. If ten men are wrecked together on a desert island, the community consists of those ten men, their welfare is the social object, and normally their will is the social law. If they have not a natural claim to rule themselves, which of them has a natural claim to rule the rest? To say that the cleverest or boldest will rule is to beg the moral question. If his talents are used for the community, in planning voyages or distilling water, then he is the servant of the community; which is, in that sense, his sovereign. If his talents are used against the community by stealing rum or poisoning water, why should the community submit to him? And is it in the least likely that it will? In such a simple case as that, everybody can see the popular basis of the thing, and the advantage of government by consent. The trouble with democracy is that it has never, in modern times, had to do with such a simple case as that. In other words, the trouble with democracy is not democracy. It is certain artificial anti-democratic things that have, in fact, thrust themselves into the modern world to thwart and destroy democracy.

Modernity is not democracy; machinery is not democracy; the surrender of everything to trade and commerce is not democracy. Capitalism is not democracy; and is admittedly, by trend and savour, rather against democracy. Plutocracy by definition is not democracy. But all these modern things forced themselves into the world at about the time, or shortly after the time, when great idealists like Rousseau and Jefferson happened to have been thinking about the democratic ideal of democracy. It is tenable that the ideal was too idealist to succeed. It is not tenable that the ideal that failed was the same as the realities that did succeed. It is one thing to say that a fool went into a jungle and was devoured by wild beasts; it is quite another to say that he himself survives as the one and only wild beast. Democracy has had everything against it in practice, and that very fact may be something against it in theory. It may be argued that it has human life against it. But, at any rate, it is quite certain that it has modern life against it. The industrial and scientific world of the last hundred years has been much more unsuitable a setting for the experiment of the self-government than would have been found in old conditions of agrarian or even nomadic life. Feudal manorial life was a not a democracy; but it could have been much more easily turned into a democracy. Later peasant life, as in France or Switzerland, actually has been quite easily turned into a democracy. But it is horribly hard to turn what is called modern industrial democracy into a democracy.

That is why many men are now beginning to say that the democratic ideal is no longer in touch with the modern spirit. I strongly agree; and I naturally prefer the democratic ideal, which is at least an ideal, and therefore, an idea, to the modern spirit, which is simply modern, therefore, already becoming ancient. I notice that the cranks, whom it would be more polite to call the idealists, are already hastening to shed this ideal. A well-known Pacifist, with whom I argued in Radical papers in my Radical days, and who then passed as a pattern Republican of the new Republic, went out of his way the other day to say, 'The voice of the people is commonly the voice of Satan.' The truth is that these Liberals never did really believe in popular government, any more than in anything else that was popular, such as pubs or the Dublin Sweepstake. They did not believe in the democracy they invoked against kings and priests. But I did believe in it; and I do believe in it, though I much preferred to invoke it against prigs and faddists. I still believe it would be the most human sort of government, if it could be once more attempted in a more human time.

Unfortunately, humanitarianism has been the mark of an inhuman time. And by inhumanity I do not mean merely cruelty; I mean the condition in which even cruelty ceases to be human. I mean the condition in which the rich man, instead of hanging six or seven of his enemies because he hates them, merely beggars and starves to death six or seven thousand people whom he does not hate, and has never seen, because they live at the other side of the world. I mean the condition in which the courtier or pander of the rich man, instead of excitedly mixing a rare, original poison for the Borgias, or carving exquisite ornamental poignard for the political purposes of the Medici, works monotonously in a factory turning out a small type of screw, which will fit into a plate he will never see; to form part of a gun he will never see; to be used in a battle he will never see, and about the merits of which he knows far less than the Renaissance rascal knew about the purposes of the poison and the dagger. In short, what is the matter with industrialism is indirection; the fact that nothing is straightforward; that all its ways are crooked even when they are meant to be straight. Into this most indirect of all systems we tried to fit the most direct of all ideas. Democracy, an ideal which is simple to excess, was vainly applied to a society which was complex to the point of craziness. It is not so very surprising that such a vision has faded in such an environment. Personally, I like the vision; but it takes all sorts to make a world, and there actually are human beings, walking about quite calmly in the daylight, who appear to like the environment.

-- from All I Survey. The original essay appeared as a column in the Illustrated London News, July 16th 1932.

Is there ever an appropriate context for being emo?

Probably not. I'm not especially artistic, but I know that I can be in a generally low mood without wearing skin-tight clothes, or being in a band, or weighing 100lbs. Not that there's anything wrong with any of those things. There's something more vague than any of these symptoms that makes me skeptical of the whole scene. Nonetheless, I'm probably more emo tonight than normal. When I want to be emo, I just "table the label and where my own brand."

I didn't have an especially Fat Tuesday, and I don't feel very prepared for Ash Wednesday. Perhaps Job Fair Thursday or Last Workday Friday will bring things up to par.

Asheville/Blacksburg/Possibly Roanoke?: Feb 15-17.
Jalvis at UNC vs Duke, on ESPN: Tomorrow 9pm.
Georgetown Scholarly Event: Feb 23.

For the daily quotes, here's one aimed at McCain, from Chesterton:

"A change of opinions is almost unknown in an elderly military man." - A Utopia of Usurers

Here's one for the Media:

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - The Speaker

Here's one for most modern liberals:

"The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."

And for Iraqi Foreign Policists:

"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution. - Tremendous Trifles, 1909

The Joys of Being Thoughtless

I am now employed at a job where I get work done and get adequate money. It is nothing amazing, but it is not stressful, the people are helpful, and it's flexible. Not since high school summer breaks have I had a job when I was not also thinking about upcoming assignments, exams, etc.

What I really just want to think as I type is how helpful it sometime is to do a monotonous task without having to really think about it. Having been working less than usual the last few months, I can say that I actually had more energy overall on those days when I had school and work from 9am to 12pm than when I had almost nothing to do. Work is as important for the mind as it is for the body. Without our knowing that we are doing work, we feel useless. The responses to being useless would be to do work; to enjoy being a sloth; or not to enjoy being a sloth, not work and be relatively miserable.

This job is good because it gives me a rest from thinking about things, and this rest will help me to think again more clearly, when need be.

-----

"Curdie spent many nights in the mine. His father and he had taken Mrs. Peterson into the secret, for they knew mother could hold her tongue, which was more than could be said of all the miners' wives.

But Curdie did not tell her that every night he spent in the mine, part of it went in earning a new red petticoat for her.

Mrs. Peterson was such a nice good mother! All mothers are nice and good more or less, but Mrs. Peterson was nice and good all more and no less. She made and kept a little heaven in that poor cottage on the high hillside for her husband and son to go home to out of the low and rather dreary earth in which they worked. I doubt if the princess was very much happier even in the arms of her huge great-grandmother than Peter and Curdie were in the arms of Mrs. Peterson. True, her hands were hard and chapped and large, but it was with work for them; and therefore, in the sight of the angels, her hands were so much the more beautiful. And if Curdie worked hard to get her a petticoat, she worked hard every day to get him comforts which he would have missed much more than she would a new petticoat even in winter. Not that she and Curdie ever thought of how much they worked for each other: that would have spoiled everything."

- The Princess and the Goblin

Dallas Willard referenced rap music and made a beatbox-esque noise in the sermon I listened to last night.

A quick note on the election.
I hope that Huckabee or Obama win. I hope that Giuliani or Hillary doesn't win. I'd rather McCain or Romney not win. I don't think Edwards will win, though maybe he'll be a vice president. I wish Paul would win, but I think it's pretty obvious that won't happen (though he's been close to Giuliani in both elections).

There is no media conspiracy against Ron Paul or any of the other lesser candidates. While media coverage wasn't always present where it was due, it was there enough. The problem is not the amount of coverage as much as the content of the coverage, which is essentially 10-sec audio tidbits and polls. Television debates are helpful only as an elementary introduction to the candidates. Real information about any of the candidates is probably aimed at a 6th grade level and is not substantial enough for informed decisions.

A quick note on current reading

On a much higher note, I am reading Hearing God by the Good Dr. Willard. The knowledge in that book is essential because it projects an image of what is possible while at the same time being a reminder of the foundational things already innately known to all people (aka the voice we turn away from in order to do what we please). It is simultaneously challenging me in at least three thought arenas, and making me very much want to read Alister McGrath's Christianity's Dangerous Idea (which has a recommendation from Willard on the back of it). If these books are as good and accurate as I hope they are, they will be a strong challenge to much that has been in my head and heart as of late.

I'm also reading I Kings, because lately I've been to far from scripture. Also rereading The Princess and the Goblin, and now I actually understand the spiritual symbolism (harder to spot than Lewis').

And I have at least some sort of job right now, until I find more/better work.

Praise the Lord that no politician will be in office forever, that books are abundantly available and cheap in America, and that I'm so blessed that I can't even decide on how to narrow the choices of praiseworthy things that could be included in this praise.