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