Another Pleasant Valley Sunday?

I thought that today might be a good day to review what Logos says about "religion." It, like one of my vaccinations, won't take very long, but "This may hurt a little bit."

There are only four verses to consider. To get the context the dear reader will have to do it her/him self..or you could borrow the ferret's elf (Satchel)

Acts 26:5 Paul to his captors--
"They have known me for a long time. If they want to,they can tell you I was a good Pharisee. And the Parisees obey the laws of the Jewish religion more carefully than any other group."

Gal 1:13 -- 14 "You have heard about my past life in the Jewish religion. I attacked the Church of God and tried to destroy it. I was becoming a leader in the Jewish religion, doing better than most other Jews my age. I tried harder than anyone else to follow the teachings handed down by our ancestors."

James 1:26 -- 27 "People who think they are religious but say things they should not say are just fooling themselves. Their' 'religion' is worth nothing. Religion that God accepts as pure and without fault is this: caring for orphans and widows who need help, and keeping yourself free from the world's evil influence."

This is taken from Strong's Concordance. Please note that the comment from James, Jesus' half brother, is the only really positive reference and it refers to doing good works, which is in counterpoint to what Paul says in his letters. Elsewhere in James, he says: "You foolish person! Must you be shown that faith that does nothing is worth nothing? So you see that people are made right with God by what they do, not by faith only. Just as a person's body that does not have a spirit is dead, so faith that does nothing is dead!" But he also said the next chapter, "For we all offend in many ways. If people never said anything wrong, we would be perfect able to control their entire selves, too." (not likely)

I would further observe that the definition of James is very general one and could apply to virtually any religion, since there are mandates for beneficent behavior and self-improvement in all religions, that is probably their most prominent earmark and commonality. Certainly it would apply to the Jewish religion as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity per se as generally defined by the majority of people. In fact if you ask most Christians, that is, self -- designated followers, why they think they are going to heaven, they will be rather uncertain and propose that they hope that their good deeds will outweigh the bad ones or something of that sort. This is what one could generally describeby the word, "Karma." Here I am not speaking of hairsplitting doctrines but of what all religions have in common, and I would include atheism, which has recently become rather evangelical, which seeks to judge other religions by their offenses, and even can be seen proposing certain types of charitable works of their own devising. Camus certainly identified in every man the strong propensity towards self-justification which appears to be ingrained in our very nature. This could explain, for instance, why Jean-Paul Sartre joined the Communist brigades. And as scientists have observed, religion and religious responses to life are virtually universal and hardwired. As Bob Dylan said, "You're Gonna Serve Somebody."

It is considered quite modern to speak of "spirituality," rather than "religion"-- which seems to have become a rather offensive word. This certainly has some biblical precedent. If one looks up spirit or Holy Spirit in the concordance there are pages and pages of references, even or especially in the Old Testament,where religion doesn't even appear as a term. I would tend to look at this as a rather hopeful development and certainly a far cry from, "Gimme that old time religion." Given the fact that our nation seems to be split into Pharisees and Sadducees neither of whom will cooperate with each other, it may be time to reconsider our religious/political dualisms. Axes of evil , axes to grind?

I mentioned immunizations in the first paragraph. It is quite possible that when we take up a religion or, "the Church of our Choice," that we are in fact getting a vaccination against the real thing. Richard Dawkins has proposed that the belief in God is similar to a virus that has been inserted into our genomes and yet can be somehow eradicated by science/education. But the "antibiotic"campaign that Dawkins et.al. are carrying on is not nearly as effective as a simple vaccination of self-righteousness or group -- righteousness. As The Grand Inquisitor section of The Brothers Karamazov demonstrates, it really doesn't take much to neutralize the impact of Christ, as a person, by broad strokes of the swords of religious actions. I would maintain that this happens more often than not. Malcolm Muggeridge, former editor of "Punch" makes this point very well in his little book, "The End of Christendom" I think Dostoevsky, himself a self-designated Christian, used skeptical Ivan's tale to point out in all its starkness the difference between a religion and a person. Jesus, in other words, is not inherently a religion, even though we try to immunize ourselves against his pernicious numinous influence by making him into an idol--and an American idol at that. "I don' care if it rains or freezes long as I gots my plastic jesus, sittin' on the dashbord of my car........." Or as Flannery O'Connor intimated in "Wise Blood," the honest Haze Motes church-without-Christ is certainly not about Jesus but comes down to the worship of the car itself, the only salvation Haze wants-or gets. Y nosotros de nostrums?

The Misfit's final words to the old gal before he offs her "fit" here:

"Yes'm," the Misfit said as if he agreed, "Jesus thrown everything off balance--If He did what He said, then it's nothing for you to do but thow away everything and follow Him, and if He didn't then it's nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can--by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him. No pleasure but meanness," and his voice had become almost a snarl.

And then?

"Some fun!" Bobby Lee said.

"Shut up, Bobby Lee," the Misfit said. "It's no real pleasure in life."

Have a Nice Day!

in which piglet and rat:

In which pig and rat visit an art gallery---Pearls before Swine--Stephan Pastis

"Hello there. Can I help you?"

"Yes.... I'm looking for a colorful painting for my bedroom."

"I see........ well, there's this one here. It's called,'The Ferret's Elf."

"Oh,gee, no... those colors are much too fair.. I'm looking for something with darker richer colors... oh well... thanks anyways."

"Wait wait wait... don't leave.... we have many paintings with darker hues.... I assure you... this is the only one like this."

"Really?"

Yes.... the only thing we have too fair is, 'Ferret's Elf."

THE QUICK BLUE FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY BROWN PASTOR

"There may actually be two shape-shifters at work here--one as a device in the story, and one in the way science is transformed under the author's hands into a benevolent, almost moral force for good that affirms human worth."

Set in Iceland in the nineteenth century, "Skugga-Baldur" involves a young woman with Down syndrome and two men in her life: Fridrik B. Fridjonsson, a man of science who befriends and values her; and the local minister, the Reverend Baldur Skuggason who treats her with contempt, as though she is less than human. As the book ends, Fridjonsson is writing a letter to a friend in Denmark, explaining the sad history of his Down syndrome friend and her treatment at the hands of Skuggason.He signs that letter,"Your affectionate friend and confidant on the limits of 'the habitable world.'"

to be continued

One Very Cold Fox

"The Icelandic poet and author Sj'on won the Nordic Council's Literature Prize in 2005 for his novel "Skugga-Baldur" (The Blue Fox) and probably he deserves it. "Skugga-Baldur" is a quick gallop of a yarn that makes use of the traditional Icelandic theme of the shape-shifter in lean, laconic prose."

Sound Interesting?

This is from the short article in Touchstone Magazine (current issue) called, "A Habitable World".
I will attempt to serialize this with excerpts, as it touches on all the last few blogs and responses.
"Blog and Respond," eh? Sounds vaguely familair.
　
　

CAMUS ON CHRISTIANS

"The world expects of Christians that they will raise their voices so loudly and clearly and so formulate their protest that not even the simplest man can have the slightest doubt about what they are saying. Further, the world expects of Christians that they themselves will eschew all fuzzy abstractions and plant themselves firmly in front of the bloody face of history. We stand in need of folk who have determined to speak directly and unmistakably and come what may, to stand by what they have said."

From his Nobel acceptance speech:.."to fashion an art of living in times of catastrophe, to be reborn by openly fighting against the death instinct at work in our society."

I cannot recommend too highly, in response to this, the following:

The German language film, "Sophie Scholl" which tells the story of the White Rose individuals in unforgettable terms. The ending is particularly fitting for our times.

Any of the many films about Dietrich Bonhoffer esp. the most recent one; a study of his book on ethics, or any study of his life and the stand he took. His letters from prison are also incomparably rich. American Christianity has not been tested in this way, the way the third world followers of Jesus have been. More's the pity for offering an ersatz version of the Gospel which eschews suffering at all cost.

System of a Down's

I have a few thoughts on this Syndrome.
The first one is personal. Not too many people are aware that we have a fifth son named Samuel, a Down's syndrome baby who was stillborn at full term. I did try to resuscitate him. I don't recall ever being so grieved, frightened, and angry at any time in my life before or since. On the other hand, powerlessness may feel horrible at the time, but over time it is a most valuable experience-especially for those who value the life of the mind, science, medicine, and the need to be in control. In general, medicine is a cruel mistress, because it is assumed that you always must be in control, while in your heart you realize that most things-especially people- are either out of control, unmanageable, or singularly anomalous. Quite often one has to use language to convince one self and others that you are actually helping. But in a situation like this, one can say absolutely nothing at the time that makes any sense. Screaming and wailing did come to mind but I didn't think that would help Flo...........
What I did not know until today is that the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the etiology of Down syndrome was last September. The story is a fascinating one and occurred in France. In 1959 Dr. Lejuene analyzed the karyotype of children with Down syndrome and was amazed to discover that the 21st gene was in triplicate! But that was not all that he discovered. He was also credited with discovering the "cry of the cat," syndrome (cri du chat") in which the child does in fact make a noise that reminds one of a cat's cry. Most medical students find this particular syndrome quite easy to remember! But he also discovered the connection between folic acid deficiency and open neural tube defects which includes a wide variety of unfortunately not uncommon effects of the spine including herniation and anencephaly in which the child is basically born without a brain. This is the reason why every mother and her prenatal care is instructed to take extra folic acid. It all started with Dr. Lejeune.
This is of particular interest to me because I am currently reading, "The Fall" by Albert Camus, another French genius who occasionally wrote about medicine by means of his fiction. The idea of a "judge penitent" is just beginning to form in my mind. Thanks to my Dad for reintroducing me to his novels and sending me a copy of this recently. Given the ability shielding the fact of inability to make judgments on the intrinsic value of another person whose life I will never live or understand, one would think this common situation would induce ethical paralysis of a sort. However, Down syndrome people are becoming an endangered species. It seems ironic that some of us feel that the Neanderthals were not given a fair shake so to speak. It is even more ironic that children with Down syndrome seem to be what I would like to be, "unoffensive and unoffendable ." I had the privilege of being able to know firsthand people with Down syndrome when my mother worked as an occupational therapist in the Dixon State School. Her compassion and ability to administer to the disabled are, at least in my own mind, a thing of legend but a true one which I do strive to emulate.
In those days i.e. the 50s and before, parents were firmly advised to put these children away lest they harm their siblings. I think research would indicate quite the opposite, that families who care for a Down syndrome child are particularly blessed and that siblings tend to work together and learn cooperation and compassion far more than they learn prejudice and sibling rivalry. This is not universal however; it really completely comes down to one's assumptions and attitudes toward the disabled as well as toward life in general. As one person has put it, when faced with something that the world considers a tragedy, one can either become " better or bitter". In my medical practice in working with Down's adults, I find that the treatment of handicapped people in general is a paradigm for life itself which is inevitably tragic at times. Sometimes it is a tossup as far as which attitude prevails; but I can say this-there are an awfully lot of bitter people out there and there is no medical cure for bitterness of spirit.
I infer, as does walker Percy, that life is a gift "concomitant with the offense." This is a little bit out of context but I think it might promote a little discussion. Anyway we can be thankful for Dr. Lejeune if not for his discovery of an extra chromosome than at least for his discovery of a key to actually prevent major congenital anomalies which is in almost universal use today. However, when a scientist does base his life and work on the handicapped, he merits only less than a page on Wikipedia. Go figure.

pascal's picks

"The sole cause of man's unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room."

"Reason's last step is a recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it."

"We run carelessly to the precipice, after we put something before us to prevent us from seeing it."

"Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism."

"Perfect clarity would profit the intellect but damage the will."

"It is not certain that everything is uncertain."

"This letter would not be so long had I but the leisure to make it shorter."

Gentile Men, Czech your engines

The answer to the riddle "Czech Engine Lite--such as it is:

An aluminum engine block once manufactured in the Eastern Bloc--see, world opinion deplored the emphasis on heavy industry during the Soviet years with its attendant pollution so Mr. Havel thought...you see where this is going, yes? So I will suprise all by not going there.. but for more information, Google Chevrolet Vega, a truly deplorable, regrettable car--that I bought new; rather like the debacle of the Electric Car--well it seemed like a good idee at the time.

Oh Tempura! Oh Morays!

THE CASH COW,LURKING

Here is an interesting suggestion:

There are 2 versions of a song entitled, "Cash Cow". One is by Steve Taylor and the other one is by a band called We Are Scientists. Compare the music videos as well as the words and tell us what you think.

Ethics-on-the-Fly

First off, a question from me: Why should the term "medical ethics" be designated as an oxymoron? This can be answered from almost any point of view in a similar fashion; scientific, religious, political, practical, etc.

Secondly, my thanks to Dennis The Hall for obtaining the article, "A Lecture on Ethics," by Ludwig Wittgenstein. It contains the quote to which I referred earlier, "I can only describe my feelings by the metaphor, that, if a man write a book on Ethics which really was a book on Ethics, this book would, with an explosion, destroy all the other books in the world. Our words used as we use them in science, are vessels capable only of containing conveying meaning and sense, natural meaning and sense. Ethics, it is anything, is supernatural and our words will only express facts; as a teacup will only hold a couple of water and if I were to pour a gallon over it................."

Of Course There Is Such a Book. The combustion mentioned above is really somewhat of a slow burn, similar to the combustion that is taking place in your body and mind as we speak. We speak of a controlled burn in the science of forestry but as one can see, such a thing can get totally out of control. There is also Entropy to consider which makes the above all the more difficult to comprehend from a purely scientific point of view. The additional problem is that pure science does not exist either. The more I think about it, whether as a scientist or as one interested in metaphysics, the more I see that we are up against the famous failure of "The Critique of Pure Reason." The French Revolution of course attempted to create a new a new goddess out of a mental construct called Reason and the results were quite unreasonable!

I would further contend that what we have today is not Science as such but "science -- so -- called." It is commonly recognized among relatively reasonable scientists that, outside of technology, science is culturally determined. (Now but I think of it, the development of technology is largely culture driven as well --my father, a World War II veteran, is fond of pointing out how much technology has been developed as a spinoff of devices invented to waste people.) Of course this is precisely the critique of postmodernists as well as a number of feminists. As I have said previously, "science proves".... very little. To reason by induction is logically speaking very difficult in the first place and extremely restrictive. Science generally advances by deduction, a much easier process, but inherently much less certain than proof by induction. The scientific method or what I would call bench science is restricted to repeatable phenomenon that can be controlled. Historical deduction is outside the realm of science just as much as Ethics, as Wittgenstein mentions.

(Incidentally, Wittgenstein was initially mentored by Bertrand Russell but quickly outgrew Russell's rather contracted universe. Dr. Russell acknowledged that Wittgenstein's abilities in mathematics etc. far outstripped his own. Wikipedia has an intriguing summary of Wittgenstein's career. I also note that T.S. Eliot was a good personal friend of Dr. Russell and they had an rather revealing correspondence in the early years of Eliot's literary career. They also parted ways I would hope to say on good terms but apparently Dr. Russell was unable to pass on his beliefs to either Wittgenstein or T.S. Eliot, a fact that I find quite fascinating to me from both scientific and literary points of view. ( I have copies of this correspondence if anyone is interested.)

I heard the Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association speak a few years back and she confessed that 15% of medical research is not just flawed but deliberately deceptive, to speak kindly about it. She also stated that this was probably just the tip of the iceberg and that even with peer review it was impossible to detect much of the deception unless one had access to the original data which, as we have heard recently, is often destroyed or altered to fit the conclusion already chosen before the study even began. The whole study would have to be repeated by different people who do not have a vested interest in making a name for themselves or fulfilling their vaulting ambitions. Not to mention the money and grants. She also acknowledged that she wasn't sure that medical ethics hadn't hit lows never previously seen in science.

The ethics and science that we generally use -- largely without thinking about them in any depth -- are part of a large and growing subculture which has an priori commitment to naturalism. Ironically this also rules out free will and puts sheer political power in its place. The Hippocratic oath is a particular example. The original Hippocratic oath had specific content. The current replacement in the AMA statements of mission/purpose etc. is so vague as to be completely useless in any practical sense. And no one uses it except possibly when the AMA is being attacked as being unethical and they certainly have been caught doing that on a number of occasions.
I think it is quite interesting that those who abhor violence and war often subscribe to the same commitment noted above but that assumption also does not mandate anything even remotely akin to pacifism. I like Walt Kelly's and Walker Percy's approach to the difficult problem of war and peace. I also do hope that everyone has read The War Prayer, by Mark Twain. I particularly liked the introduction in which Mr. Twain confesses that he has told the whole truth in this poem and he would not allow it to be published until after his death. He was apparently afraid of the backlash in spite of his established reputation and fame. I am hoping for some feedback on this.

One final question: which book did Mark Twain consider his best? Any ideas why? Any ideas why one never hears about it?

First off, a question from me: Why should the term "medical ethics" be designated as an oxymoron? This can be answered from almost any point of view in a similar fashion; scientific, religious, political, practical, etc.

Secondly, my thanks to Dennis The Hall obtaining the article, "A Lecture on Ethics," by Ludwig Wittgenstein. It contains the quote to which I referred earlier, "I can only describe my feelings by the metaphor, that, if a man write a book on Ethics which really was a book on Ethics, this book would, with an explosion, destroy all the other books in the world. Our words used as we use them in science, are vessels capable only of containing conveying meaning and sense, natural meaning and sense. Ethics, it is anything, is supernatural and our words will only express facts; as a teacup will only hold a cup of water and if I were to pour a gallon over it................."

Of Course There Is Such a Book. The combustion mentioned above is really somewhat of a slow burn, similar to the combustion that is taking place in your body and mind as we speak. We speak of a controlled burn in the science of forestry but as one can see, the thing can get totally out of control. There is also Entropy to consider which makes the above all the more difficult to comprehend from a purely scientific point of view. The additional problem is that pure science does not exist either. The more I think about it, whether as a scientist or one interested in metaphysics, the more I see that we are up against the famous failure of "The Critique of Pure Reason." The French Revolution of course attempted to create a new a new goddess out of a mental construct called Reason and the results were quite unreasonable!

I would further contend that what we have today is not Science as such but "science -- so -- called." It is commonly recognized among relatively reasonable scientists that, outside of technology, science is culturally determined. Of course this is precisely the critique of postmodernists as well as a number of feminists. As I have said previously, "science proves".... very little. To reason by induction is logically speaking very difficult in the first place and extremely restrictive. Science generally advances by deduction, a much easier process, but inherently much less certain than proof by induction. The scientific method or what I would call bench science is restricted to repeatable phenomenon that can be controlled. Historical deduction is outside the realm of science just as much is Ethics, as Wittgenstein mentions.

(Incidentally, Wittgenstein was initially mentored by Bertrand Russell but quickly outgrew Russell's rather contracted universe. Dr. Russell acknowledged that Wittgenstein's abilities in mathematics etc. far outstripped his own. Wikipedia has an interesting summary of Wittgenstein's career. I also note that T.S. Eliot was a good personal friend of Dr. Russell and they had an interesting correspondence in the early years of Eliot's literary career. They also parted ways I would say on good terms but apparently Dr. Russell was unable to pass on his beliefs to either Wittgenstein or T.S. Eliot, a fact that I find quite fascinating to me from both scientific and literary points of view. I have copies of this correspondence if anyone is interested.)

I heard the Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association speak a few years back and she confessed that 15% of medical research is not just flawed but deliberately deceptive, to speak kindly about it. She also stated that this was probably just the tip of the iceberg and that even with peer review it was impossible to detect much of the deception unless one had access to the original data which, as we have heard recently, is often destroyed or altered to fit the conclusion already chosen previously. The whole study would have to be repeated by different people who do not have a vested interest in making a name for themselves or fulfilling their vaulting ambitions. Not to mention the money and grants. She also acknowledged that she wasn't sure that medical ethics hadn't hit lows never previously seen.

The ethics and science that we generally use -- largely without thinking about it in any depth -- are part of a large and growing subculture which has an priori commitment to naturalism. Ironically this also rules out free will and puts sheer political power in its place. The Hippocratic oath is a particular example. The original Hippocratic oath had specific content. The current replacement in the AMA pantheon is so vague as to be completely useless in any practical sense. In other words no one uses it. I think it is quite interesting that those who abhor violence and war often subscribe to the same commitment noted above but that assumption also does not mandate anything even remotely akin to pacifism. I like Walt Kelly's and Walker Percy's approach to the difficult problem of war and peace. I also do hope that everyone has read The War Prayer, by Mark Twain. I particularly liked the introduction in which Mr. Twain confesses that he has told the whole truth in this poem and he would not allow it to be published until after his death. He was apparently afraid of the backlash in spite of his established reputation and fame.

I am hoping for some feedback on this. One final question: which book did Mark Twain consider his best? Any ideas why? Any ideas why one never hears about it?

NO FEAR...GOT FEAR?...FEAR THIS...LOGO(S)

How do these various quotes strike you? --

"Great minds are occupied with ideas. Little minds are concerned with people." This is not the exact quote I believe there is an intermediate level which I believe might be a bit bourgeois.

"People who need people are the luckiest people in the world!"

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

"The only sin is worry." These last two are from secular observers.

Richard Dawkins and co. are presenting adverts on British buses: "There Is Probably No God; so Relax!"
(Dr. Dawkins has admitted there is a one in seven chance that he is wrong-- incredibly gracious of him woudn't you say?)

I recall a Twilight Zone episode in which an office worker who was a bit of a crab was portrayed as being everlastingly disgusted at the people around him. There were no cubicles in those days. He would moan, "People, people, people!" hour after hour and day after day, under his breath of course. One day he woke to find that everyone in the office and, by inference,in the entire world had become a carbon copy of himself. Do the math, make the moral...for those of you that do not know what a carbon copy is, no, it is not a carbonite replica of Hans Solo. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls!!!

Wreck amended reeding for those who have axe cess--
New Yorker our tickles or store eez "Storage Jars Go to War"

"Idols" by Tim Gautreau but first must read "Parker's Back" by Flannery O'Connor
"All That" by David Foster Wallace December 14 issue. The way that the author felt in his childhood is somehat comparable to what I feel at age 60. As I look back, I can honestly say that there is one feeling that has always eluded me, and that is boredom. Flummoxed, yes. Terrified? Often! But I really can't relate to being bored because everything fascinates me. A lot of people say that their teacher is boring. Frankly I can't say like Will Rogers that I never met a man I didn't like..but as far as I can remember--which must of necessity be selective -- I can say is that I cannot recall a person from whom I couldn't learn something--even the comatose have something to say to us!

"Midnight in Dostoyevsky" by Don DeLillo in the November 30 issue describes a professor of logic. I have not finished the article yet but I think it may already be another example of how people can be fascinating even in their pathologies; or especially in them. The grotesque characters of O'Connor are more stimulating perhaps and she meant to draw "large and startling figures" for those of us who had lost our sensitivities to the wonders of the Same Old Thing (CSL)

Recent interview in "the Talk of the Town" -- December 28 issue -- with Christopher Plummer who appears as Tolstoy in a recent movie. My sister and I tried to see this film but ran out of time and good weather when we were visiting at her house in Maryland. Mr. Plummer states that, " In my teens, I was terribly shy, and people scared me..........." so he went away to become, "... a playboy of every Western -- and Eastern -- world." Which is why he has mostly lived in hotels and apparently still does. This reminds me of another New Yorker cartoon portraying a single adult male walking into a cocktail party and thinking, "Yikes! Grown-ups!" Ever felt like that?



I would also highly suggest reading the lead article in Time magazine, I can't make out the date that it was released, entitled "Why Your DNA Isn't Your Destiny" I was totally unaware of epigenetics and the magnitude of its influence. It will change everything about genetic research, genetic engineering, and possibly history itself. I hope to discuss fragments of this information in this blog. The article isn't that long but it is a little bit technical however the ideas themselves are presented very clearly.

Thanks John! I thought of more scary white stuff so you might want to consider these frights:

The Great White Hope this has to do with pugilism lined with racism, which of course is based on feer as we have heard from at least three of us on this blog.

On the other hand there is The Great White which as you may recall is or was a rock band famous for their pyrotechnique. A classic example of the law unintended consequences. Their fireworks show in New Jersey I believe started a fire which killed numerous fans. I suppose their name is supposed to be a combination of the great white hope, the great white whale, and the great white shark. Scary times three I guess. So if that was their purpose i.e. to take great risks and be edgy, it looks like they succeeded.

So I suppose if you really want to be scary or to be scared you have to combine White Stuff kind of like we use combination pills -- which is also scary. Also keep in mind that most pills including generics especially, are dead white, no pun intended.

So perhaps what would be scariest to be simply like this combination: the Ghost of a linen origami whale on sale at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Nantucket kicking the bucket -- and then the judgment. Plus the stuff in the middle of the Oreo cookie -- which has been killed numerous diabetics.

To be truthful, what brought this to mind was Little Lulu! Please allow me to explain. I spent my Christmas gift cards on a book called The Toon Treasury of Classic Children's Comics. I suppose everyone has figured out by now that I am quite addicted to comics and comic book materials. The reason I would recommend this book is that it is edited and selected by Art Spiegelman and Francoise Mouly who are respectively: the creator of "Maus" the visual parable of the Jews and the Nazis as portrayed by mice and cats; and the artistic director of the New Yorker.. So we have very fascinating collection with some very surprising inclusions. The next time you make a run for the Borders, I would suggest you look this over. The cartoon in which I am referring is on page 207 and is called "The Guest in the Ghost Hotel" . On the cover little Lulu is reading a book called Ghost Stories. Really quite cool. I will probably make reference to this later in regards to general subject of fear.

Also be sure to look at the comic strip, "Amos the Intellectual." !!!

THE RUBE GOLDBERG VARIATIONS

THE BIG BOOK OF STORY PROBLEMS VOLUME I I

-- What is the scariest warning in all of test-taking?

"There may be more than one right answer."

2 -- And the second most scary?

"Choose the one BEST answer."

3 -- what is the: Czech Engine, Lite--? And what should you do about it?

4 -- multiple choice, see above, do not panic there is nothing wrong with the airplane.......

A. What is your name?
B. What is your quest?
C. what is your favorite colour? (Be careful- presumption goeth before a fall)

5 -- authors are sometimes quite frightened by a blank/WHITE sheet of paper with nothing on it. Come to think of it there are many Great WHITES that can be quite unnerving -- one thinks of albino rabbits, rats, snakes, scorpions, and eyeless cave fish. And Johnny Winter. Please choose from the following options and select your favorite object d' feer:

nota beanie: please respect long-standing traditions in your selection. It may help to imagine that you are Queen Victoria. If this is unacceptable Prince Edward in or out of the can may be an acceptable male substitute. Scary white things may include:

Ghosts
Whales with or without crooked jaw
Sales
Sheets see above. You may choose from one hole, two holes, or a Swiss print.
Elephants. Compare with Pink. May also choose subcategory X. which would be white elephant gift exchanges/anarchy.
People ( Things White People Like may be included)
Raiment compare with: Promise Keeper T-shirts
Wedding Dresses
White people in White Wedding Dresses
Weddings -- cakes, pastel mints, or just plain weddings
Thrown Judgments
please feel free to add your own White Fright or White Flight . Reggie White not included.

THE BIG BOOK OF STORY PROBLEMS VOLUME I

DEERE,JOHN (greens and yellows ROCK)

Since JMS was the only person to take a stabat the riddle, all I gotta sayis:

The original quote was, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" which relates to Walt Kelly's often quoted but seldom heeded antitropism, "We have met the enemy and he is us" which is based on the famous military line, "We have met the enemy and his is ours." Dennis?

Actually any old answer you make up could be rite, so, John, your first response is an option..a person can always JUST SAY NO to unpatented nonsense. If "nonsense" actually exists, say, in the Parallel Universe called "Mr Lucky".

The second answer is, when you are rich and famous, everbuddy wannabe yer fren'. Even Crocs!! And when you have a really lot of big guys workin' fer ya, yer enemies are kinda hard to find. But! As Hobbes said at the Impregnable Snow Fort Debacle re: Calvin de-coys, "Your enemies must not be very bright." Reference MP sketcher,skitter or spoof--HOW NOT TO BE SEEN. (Hey zeeebas--eez "box o' fun" see it say so right on side of box) Nex' to Ethicator switch.

Howland Owl So Ever----------- what I was really thinking of is: The Pearl of Great Price, and the Pauline comment that we are "already seated in heavenly places." People can say they are your enemies and really try to be --see John 7-- but when , "Forgive them Father" is a set but yet not frozen policy, as it is and was before time was brought into existence and way before dirty deeds are done to you n' me-one realizes that there can be a palpably felt reality of the claim "What can man do to me?" Which is something I have begun to feel and understand in the last 6-7 months.
It is in fact what prodded me to start this blog. Sadducee to Pharisee to Holy Spirit--not meaning Christiandumb, Christian lite, or Religion qua Religion.. The person William Wilberforce--who most of us know, but forget that his signature work is Real Christianity which is still in print and very much applicable today-may be an example. But we haven't discussed it yet . "Strangely Warmed" is one humble attempt to address the actual Presence but like all descriptions, it is meaningless and a serious understatement unless it actually happens to happen. I can tell a person some poetic diction but it sure isn't dictation..to have dictation one has to have a Dictater.............or......

The pertinent question for me now is, What can God do to me? And I can't begin to answer that and at my age I am more a- gnostic about this than ever.. what has replaced it is in incomprhensible awe of my surroundings, something which is quite beyond words..the letter without the Spirit is dead.


"Is this a trick question?" Calvin asked the UberMom when he was caught pounding nails into the coffee table--"What are you doing!!!!!!!" could be a trick I suppose.. it's like the question God might ask us back when we ask, usually in anger, "Why aren't you doing anything about the suffering in this world?" I think the real Calvin and the real environmentalists have come to agree that man is the problem, not God.


Sorry I asked?

I would only add, to the IT'S COMPLICATED theme Psalm , that it is said that the last enemy is death. And that we are our own worst enemies which is easily and empirically demonstrable. "DEATH THERAPY,BOB:<)))) Winkey Pratney startled his atheist friend contemplating the hemlock. His friend said, It's all hopeless I just have to die!" "Yes! Yes!! 'Oh yes!!! That's exactly what you have to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(EUREKA!!!)

The pornography of hatred

The root word of pornography Appears to have something to do with prostitution as opposed to sex per se. Of course there are all kinds of prostitution but the derivative meanings seem to be based on the original meaning, more or less. Of course roots do not necessarily determine the present state of the evolution of language. For example,there probably is a connection between the original word "gay,"and its current usage but on the face of it the connection seems to be obscure to most of us. We had Gay neighbors growing up. Their farm is little more than a few shards of wreckage however it was a nice little place, on the hill just to the east of our farm. I often wonder what became of them. It is sad that I don't remember their first names. I am inclined to think that my friend's name was Gary Gay but I might be thinking about the homosexual Gary that I met when I was a freshman at Northern Illinois University. Gary was a good friend and helped me in a wonderful way, actually in two wonderful ways. He allowed me to learn about a whole new world i.e. the gay subculture. And he also helped me to discover I was not homosexually inclined.

Gary- NIU Gary- had a unique word for people who were clueless. A word I have never heard again in any context, so I wonder if it is a part of the gay idiom: 'PEARHEAD.'
Now that I think about this, it is fairly obvious that this probably means something similar to "pinhead." I seem to recall a comic strip based on such characters.

The reason this comes to mind, and this is off the cuff, is that I am puzzled over the current meaning of some popular words. I recently went to the book store-more about my purchase later-and there I noticed a very prominent book apparently a best seller, called "How to Talk to Idiots". It reminded me of an earlier book entitled, "R...L... Is a Big Fat Idiot" I also received a magazine, one which I normally like to read unlike the other titles just mentioned, entitled, "(M.A.) Is an Idiot" While I was in the airport I read a few pages of MA's book. I don't quite see the point.

Is this all tongue in cheek, ironic and not irenic? Dies Irae!!!!!!!! "I think not!"-- by the little man who wasn't there-- some people have excused Garrison Keillor's complaint about Unitarians as being tongue in cheek. GK usually writes humorously--but this last column was not humorous, it was decidedly quite serious and represents a side of GK that I think we males all have but try to keep well cloaked. My parents think he may have had a stroke. If so he need to take an aspirin if his CAT scan looks ok. But in another sense--see below--organicity may have a lot to do with it, although there are many many other contributing factors to consider..are we responsible for our words? Science is out to lunch on this, but makes a great excuse to add to all the ancient ones. One thing is certain-- the lawyers have a tax on personal responsibility and it's very profitable for them not to admit Randomness as a possiblity, at least not in public. In private it's Total Oliver Wendell Holmes; in public it's Abraham...and Lincoln.

I also understand that there has been a bill passed recently against "hate speech." It apparently has not been implemented yet. Obviously.

I realize that pejorative speech, like prostitution, he has always been with us. Because of this, the descriptive term "dysfunctional," is difficult to apply with any precision. What I am coming to realize is that it is addictive perhaps the same way that sexual pornography is addictive but may also be such a basic reaction that it cannot be eliminated only suppressed. I recently observed that Linus claimed he was allergic to criticism. This may not be just a figure of speech. To compound the difficulty, it is quite common to be allergic to oneself. Examples would be rheumatoid arthritis; systemic lupus erythematosus which is very interesting in that it is an allergic reaction to a person's own DNA. I have struggled with what is called in Christianese a "critical spirit." Whether this is my own personality disorder; or whether it is gender based, culturally conditioned, or an acquired immune syndrome caused by a retrovirus, or just my own personal acquired or inborn taste in thought, imagination, and social intercourse-is of course impossible to say and I would be the last one to be able to pin that down, referring back to Kierkegaard and Walker Percy and "Lost in the Cosmos-The Last Self-Help Book".

We are all aware of the connection between sex and violence of course. A wonderful parody of this can be enjoyed in the British comedy sketch, "Sex and Violence down the Mines " -it is quite easy to infer the connection in numerous rock and roll acts. The Sex Pistols, Guns n' Roses, and The Violent Femmes come to mind.. so there seems to be some type of organic connection here extremely well lubricated by certain cultural conditions and cycles. There can be little argument that this is a fundamental connection and can even be found in the studies of brain function and structure especially with modern technologies such as PET scanning and even more amazing tools. The most recent book that I have read on this is called "His Brain, Her Brain " by Walt and Barb Larimore. While it does not necessarily address specifically the issue that I am talking about here, the research involves embryology, endocrinology, development and developmental psychology cultural and spiritual issues just to name a few.

Just as with drug addiction, it appears that endorphins are part of the chain of cause-and-effect. I would be interested to know what happens with endorphins in the male brain in particular when violent videogames are played. My guess is that the response to morphine, crack cocaine, pornography, and a virtual violence are quite similar. I would be interested to know if anybody has any insight about this since I don't have time to do any further research on the at the moment. And what is the biochemical reponse of the female brain to the same set of stimuli? Any "thoughts" on that? "Evidence-based medicine" is the current buzzword around my ranch. WE WISH!!!!!!!!!!!

The question I asked in the last post is quite relevant here. The response to the question of the appropriateness of these sexual/violent display behaviors are myriad but the common root appears to be evasion of personal responsibility. Anything from, "devil made me do it, " to "I was born this way, " or "God made me this way " or "the woman that you gave me (made me do it yeh right) " is the problem --and there's the classic R. Crumb dictum: "Um Tut Sut; sure why not? "And millions more; probably 100s of unique excuses for every man woman and child on the planet.

"Here the MS breaks off again and resumes again in another" ....Post. Stay Toasty. Write if you get unemployed.........

see?

"See?? See the snow goons? I didn't make them! I mean, I made one, sort of by accident, but the rest made themselves! They were building an army, see? See, that's why had to freeze them last night! I had to get them while they were sleeping! It was my only chance, see? See, it all makes sense! "

"See? See???"

"They never see."

Q. and A. Time

I have written quite a bit over the last week, and I even published a long post, but then I read something in the paper about local bloggers who actually send their comments to the newspaper where Mark's friend Allison works. Here is a sample:

RACISM, IGNORANCE SURFACE IN LOCAL BLOGS

"Take for example, the story about the Hernandez family of LaSalle who received a monetary gift from a Secret Santa who showed up on their doorstep. The family was ecstatic and wanted very much to thank the man who gave them the money, and most importantly, opportunity to give their children something they really wanted for Christmas. In just a few hours after the story appeared on the News Tribune Website, bloggers criticize the Hernandez family for their financial choices and chastised them by assuming they could not speak English.

"Another example is in the cockfighting story or an anonymous person with the handle, "Deport all of them" stated, "DEPORT THEM ALL and if they should be found in the United States of America again illegally, shoot them."


Since I have worked with the Mexican-American community ever since I got here, this kind of stopped me in my tracks and I felt strongly that what I had written the day before was entirely too silly, so to speak, and gravely inappropriate. So I trashed the original blog, hoping that no one would see it. I posted it the night before right after writing it, and although I had a frankly delirious time creating it, I withdrew it from the blogosphere.. I then dictated the newspaper article above and added some comments -- which no one will ever see thankfully -- and this post completely disappeared when I tried to paste it into the blog.

I have come to the conclusions that:

1. None of this happened by chance

2. nothing happens by chance

3.there is no such thing as luck

4. the devil cannot make you do anything c.f. Screwtape can write letters better than I can, but Wormwood can't seem to carry out orders. Absolutely super!

5 . There is such a thing as free will even though not everything exhibits it, and certainly few people use it.
5.5 Corollary to the above: there is such a thing as love;
5.77 sub-corollary to the above: all real love is free love; good news for hippies! (+ir1)

7 "the holy spirit made me do it "is also an oxymoron.

6 There are numerous scientists who say we have no free will and no soul.

There are at least as many scientists who would disagree, one prominent example being Michael Polyani and quite a large number of mathematicians as well.

8. an honest agnostic is hard to find; but gnostics are, as H.L.Menken once said of fundamentalists, coming out of the woodwork
8.5 I am an agnostic. Everyone is an agnostic. Regardless of labels we throw around without thinking what we are really saying. Gnostics are also a-gnostic. I once studied "anthroposophy" also known as "spiritual science," the tool of the scientists of this genre is, unsurprisingly, clairvoyance. As with most similar groups, it is assumed that only a small group of people are able to "gnosis" higher knowledge; but with due diligence and much meditation, one can attain to a spiritual plane; but only if you were destined to be such a person and you work really really hard at it. On the other hand, I never met anyone in anthroposophy who thought they knew everything, not even close. So there you are, regardless of the self-designation. Still agnostic. What's in a name inter alia. There are some really lovable people in this society; and unlike theosophy from which they emerged, Rudolph Steiner claimed to be a Christian and actually started his own church whose format is not too unlike a Roman Catholic Mass, rewritten by his friendly mystics ne' ghost writers of course. Google: Christian Community/Anhroposophy...



I could go on and on; more bullet points to follow from Baby Bullet Bill.

What does this have to do with the substance of the newspaper report on Hostile Blogging?

Once again let me try to explain. Most people who would read this article, except for the racist minded bloggers themselves, would say "that's just plain wrong!!!" At least that was my reaction. And for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, at least on the Newtonian level, which is after all where we live. The question is, "what's wrong with this picture?"

By "wrong," do we simply mean, not correct? An errata? But in order to be correct, there has to be a point of reference, or the word is not only meaningless but useless. To be able to say, "You are lying," there has to be some type of a standard in contradistinction to what is not true. Similarly, to use "wrong," as meaning unethical or immoral, does require some type of consensus-- or once again using the word is futile even in the most obvious context, since there is no agreement within the general or even subcultural readership. Lewis Carroll used one of his Alice in Wonderland characters to say in essence: "a word means what I mean it to mean, so there." As I recall, Alice at that point was not very tall, and was not able to answer this argument. This is the essence of the postmodern view i.e. that everything revolves around power, politics, values that are not valuable but entirely at the mercy of the culture which controls the individual. This is not at all unlike Tolstoy's theory of history in which the individual, such as Napoleon, is at the mercy of forces that he can neither control nor understand. Rather it like being at the wrong place at the wrong time, sorry about that, chief.

Yet we continue to speak in terms of right and wrong, true and false. Even the most committed relativist will admit that he cannot live life that way, the hypothetical performance of pure relativism which is to say, ironically, absolute relativism, is not consistent with any known societal arrangement; even anarchy presupposes a frame of reference; man does not live by Brownian Movement alone. In none of our present incarnations is there any indication of people acting at random, in fact, I don't think it is physically possible using the most complex organism in the known universe according to Isaac Asimov et al., given the actual physical structure that we have, to even create random patterns. There is also the factor of the "Ghost in the Machine,"; it is probably not physically or mathematically likely that the 3 pound brain that we all have can understand itself even if it thinks it understands everybody and everything else. Man simply does not have the capacity to either create or even understand a "theory of everything," our limitations are as awe-inspiring as our capacities.

As far back as high school or college I used to experiment with some of my colleagues and I would ask them to write a sentence completely at random. We would then look at this. Usually the writer would be unable to make any sense of what he wrote. However, as an outside reviewer, it was actually quite easy to see the connections between the dots of their attempt at stream of consciousness. Of course this is the tool that Freud used -- that free association would basically be entirely analyzable and make sense in terms of the unconscious, that is the things that we do not know about ourselves. In the book, Lost in the Cosmos, author Walker Percy (who studied both Kierkegaard and Freud intensively and was trained in science himself) amplified as this technique adding many other tools including the Socratic method, and the result is both amusing and alarming -- most of us don't know how to answer his questions -- which shows a lot about us. He pointed out that we know more about the planet Saturn than we know about ourselves; and although we can size up the manuscript written by someone else by reading a few sentences, we generally don't even have a clue about even what color shirt looks good on us whether we are blind or like a cherubim in a house of mirrors! "A Wrinkle In Time" describes this creature --are you, "all ears"? Imagine: ALL EYES...all the time..and a half a time...........

The difference between a newborn baby with Down Syndrome and the "Smartest Man in the World" a.k.a. the uber mensch that can lick all the others (borrowing from Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous pronouncement on his opinion of right and wrong which is essentially the same as Nietzsche's)
would be
undetectable even if one compares the sum total of the collective knowledge -- conscious, subconscious, and unconscious -- collected by every 3 pound brain that ever existed; with all the knowledge that is possible to know. Albert Einstein's estimation of how much we actually know/gnosis and also his (apocryphal?) story of the existence of good and evil is also quite instructive in terms of what we are talking about. I can attempt to find this if anybody is interested. The argument is eminently cogent but it may be an urban myth to attribute it to Albert Einstein, somewhat like the phony story that circulates about Charles Darwin's deathbed conversion. On the other hand, how do we call these myths phony, wrong, or deceptive. The current method of argument completely negates the law of contradiction, without which we cannot have any usable logic; or even any arguments at all. There are a number of authors who have famously said something like, "It was true.... for me..... even if it did not "happen." This is the ultimate Hollywood Dream to be able to sell fantasy for the same price as reality.


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

If I may go back to the original headline as well as to Calvin and Hobbes' trenchant observations I will attempt to do a Walker Percy/shouts and murmurs end-of-the-year/new year questionnaire:

1. I have had an extremely strong negative reaction to people of abusing women, animals, and people of other races or persuasions as long as I can remember. I am not sure a lot of males share these emotions however that could be simply the practical application of the cone of silence. Is this reaction the result of conditioning, biological structural and physiological interactions between various parts of my body; assuming that the word "mind" is merely a convenient fiction?
2. Is racism/gender discrimination/wrong in any generally agreeable sense or merely a physical error in judgment which, practically speaking is only wrong if you get caught, again, being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Are our negative reactions result of hypertrophy of the limbic system at the cost of cerebral cortex? These questions are meaningful to me especially as a scientist who happens to be a physician; but in general it would seem this would be an issue for almost anyone who is not content to go through life as a series of conditioned reflexes. Assuming this is physically possible.
3. Without reference to my various mental meanderings, how does this headline strike you as an individual? How much of your reaction/understanding of this is, in your estimation, biological, cultural, or spiritual in some way?
4. If there was such a thing as Absolute Truth, what tools would we have to detect such a thing? There are things that we obviously cannot grasp, don't care to grasp, and don't even want to hear about. If we are unable to discern any type of Absolute, would it then follow that Absolutes do not exist? There is such a thing as Absolute Zero and we can even attach a number to it -- but this is not scientifically demonstrable. If there are multiple parallel universes and so forth does this actually solve any of the problems we are considering or does it simply compound them? If we decide to assume that there are no Absolutes whether physical ethical or scriptural -- would anything change as far as we can tell?
5. Would you trust the average ethicist with your wife? Do you want to have a doctor who is ethical? If so, what kind of ethics do you want her/him to have? Arthur Koestler, a notorious womanizer, who wrote the Ghost in the Machine, gives one answer which may not be what we might think. Or want to hear.
6. The concept of morality appears to be bound to the notion of culture. What then is ethics? Is there anything super cultural about this? Is there a Tao as suggested by St.Lewis and many others? Is any of this objectively verifiable on any level? What do you make of this quote by Wittgenstein, who was a colleague of Bertrand Russell and T.S. Eliot was also a friend of Russell's: "there is no such thing as a book of ethics. If there were, it would explode all the other books in the world."? (I would love it if someone could find the actual quote I heard it a long time ago but am pretty sure that Wittgenstein said it in a much more striking fashion and context
7. These are only the questions that happened to occur to me on the fly. I am sure I could do better if I had more time, kind of like all those monkeys typing Shakespeare. I apologize for the length of this meditation. However this wasn't even really what I was intending to write, I would've much preferred to write something else in something lighter or in a poetic style etc. However consider that this represents not only about a week's worth of throwing things away and not posting much at all; so take what you need and leave the rest for someone else. I will be back at tracking other things and trying other experiments-- so, as I said at the very beginning: friends, Romans, and countrymen: give me your patience. and eye contact as my wife is wont to add; Here snipe, skype, skypey................ And next time we will try doing speed drill endings for the verb " Amar" So study hard For Dr. Chips eh?

"SNOW GOONS ARE BAD NEWS"

"THAT lesson certainly ought to be inapplicable elsewhere in life." -- Hobbes
"I like maxims that don't encourage behavior modification." -- Calvin

What supporting actor in the famous film, "Calvin and Hobbes Ads Infinitums," said this fine line:

"Because the body is the home of the Spirit, if you're not in bed in two minutes, your spirit is going to be permanently nomadic."..........................???

Who invented the term, "math atheist," and what caused him to become one?

Who owes you an explanation or 2?

who gives you good credit who says yule regret it ??

Riddle

"With riches Like these
Who has
enemies
?"

res ipsa loquitur

no one expects the........Judean People's Front..not even the People's Front of Judea

WARNING LABEL: DO NOT LOOK DOWN. GO BACK. BRIDGE IS OUT. DANGER, DANGER, "TRESPASSERS WILL".............

. ........here the MS breaks off and resumes in a different hand.......

(Signed) TOADPIPE
For His Abysmal Sublimity Under-Secretary, Screwtape. T.E.,B.S.,etc

1-1-10

"The new years walk, restoring
Through a bright cloud of tears, the years, restoring
With the new verse the ancient rhyme. Redeem
The time. Redeem
The unread vision in a higher dream."

(T.S. Eliot describes redemption as a figure moving about ashes and endings in "Ash Wednesday.")

(Taken from "a Slice of Infinity" at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries)

Also from the Most Unpleasant Mr. Eliot: "The Cultivation of Christmas Trees"

"The expectation of the goose or turkey
And the expected awe on its appearance,
So that the reverence and the gaiety
May not be forgotten in later experience,
In the bored habituation, the fatigue, the tedium,
The awareness of death, the consciousness of failure,
Or in the piety of the convert
Which may be tainted with a self- conceit
Displeasing to God and disrespectful to the children
(and here I remember also with gratitude
St. Lucy,her carol, and her crown of fire):
So that before the end, the 80th Christmas
(by '80th' meaning whichever is the last)
The accumulated memories of annual emotion
May be concentrated into a great joy
Which shall be also a great fear, as on the occasion
When fear came upon every soul:
Because the beginning shall remind us of the end
And the first coming of the second coming."

FYI-- the Unitarians brought the Christmas tree to New England, where the celebration of Christmas had been outlawed. "God is no respecter of persons" Needless to say.



JOY TO THE WORLD