Goodreads review of Meno

(Originally written October 24, 2017)

From my Goodreads review.

This is one of my favorite dialogues because it encapsulates Socrates' style without being overly repetitive. It's also an interesting conclusion that virtue cannot be taught or acquired; but, is rather given to virtuous men by the divine. In a Christian understanding of it we might say that Socrates is a good guide by virtue of having a right opinion of imago dei. Certainly he can't have had knowledge of it, but if it leads to the right destination then it is just as useful as knowledge. But, that is just a thought very off topic.

Quick Thoughts on The Symposium

I just finished The Symposium by Plato last night. It was probably the third or fourth time I've read it in my recent (and slow paced) journey through all of Plato's works. I've taken notes in my notebooks that will eventually find their way on to this blog in the future, so I won't spend too much time here other than to give my overarching thoughts on it. Here is what I wrote on my Goodreads page: "In the Symposium not all speeches are equal. This is one of my favorite dialogues of Plato, but surprisingly not because of Socrates. Aristophanes' speech about the fantastically weird original humans and Alcibiades' drunken entrance are exceptional pieces of literature - humorously and babbingly brilliant". I'm not going to add much more to this here, but I read this book again, even though I had read this particular dialogue in two or three collections of dialogues earlier because I wanted to reread the speech of Aristophanes. I don't know why it is so fascinating to me. It could be that it's just so odd I can't help just be attracted to it.

Two verses from Acts 3

I've been rather neglectful of a number of things in my life recently. I've been intellectually, spiritually, physically and creatively lazy over the past few months. This is nothing new - and it tends to coincide with dips in form in my struggles. This in turn creates tension in my marriage, putting more pressure on my inability to overcome my baser desires and intentional forgetfulness. That in turn, makes me a bit depressed and I turn to my well worn stress relievers putting more tension on my marriage and the carousel continues to spin faster and faster, sucking me in deeper and deeper to the middle and everything seems to get worse and worse. And so on and so on. But, if I push through and am not intellectually, physically, creatively or most importantly, spiritually lazy than none of this happens. Mistakes are still made, but these are incidents rather than cycles.

I often work in platitudes or hastily announced, unachievable goals. This drives my wife insane and sets me up for failure. I'm trying not to do this again. I've ran or worked out the last three days, finished another book (40 of my 60 goal this year) and read some from Acts last night. I'm hoping to just make incremental progress this week and work on creating a more virtuous circle rather than getting sucked into the aforementioned negative merry-go-round. But - as you can see, that last sentence is rather close to a hastily announced, unachievable goal. Is it my own personal jargon? Who am I announcing these platitudes towards? I think I'm only saying them to ease my own unrest. But, I digress.

I read the first three chapters of Acts last night after finishing The Symposium by Plato and reading 20 pages of Ulysses by Joyce. It took me nearly a month to finish the Plato piece (which marks my intellectual laziness as of late). It will take me longer to finish Joyce (which is because it's a gargantuan 700 plus pages and difficult to read). But, two verses stood out to me from Acts 3.

Acts 3:16

"It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him".

I'm not sure that I'm ready or willing to call my self-inflicted frustrations a disease. It's more of an issue of will. But, there is definitely some healing that needs to take place in me. Whether it is biological or spiritual in nature is a question of semantics. There is something broken inside of me. And it struck me that my spiritual laziness is leading me to reject complete healing. What also struck me about this verse is that faith comes through Jesus. In order for man to have faith it must come through Jesus. It isn't a strength of a man reaching out to Jesus, but rather Jesus preceding the faith that the man can have. So I prayed for that faith that comes only through Jesus last night and I echo that prayer again today.

Acts 3:26

"When God raised up His servant, He sent him first to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways".

My struggles are my struggles. They have impacted my social life, my career life, my physical life to an extent, my spiritual life and my love life. To be blunt, they have sucked. Yet, I derive a weird pleasure while going through them. I know it's wrong but I do it anyway for the moments of escape they provide. However, this verse jumped out at me because I never thought of getting out of these struggles as a blessing. I just figured when I grew out of this struggle that I could return to a sort of base line normalcy. I now see it - when I am turned by Jesus from my wicked way, I won't be returning to some base line normalcy, but an elevated state of being blessed.

Odysseus: A Life

From my Goodreads review...

It feels somewhat wrong to give the same number of stars to this book as The Iliad and The Odyssey; however, I've done just that because Charles Rowan Beye has made Odysseus extremely accessible without this book being overly scholarly, and thus, overly dry. The style of the work is good and reconstructs Odysseus' life and times that a neophyte Greek historian like myself can digest. I highly recommend this book to anyone looking to understand either of Homer's works a little more clearly.

I had just finished up the aforementioned books before getting into this one and it was very good to get a recap at the end. I only wish I had read the Aeneid prior, but chest la vie? Now it's on to Ulysses (and if my previous encounter with Joyce is a harbinger of things to come, a commentary on that as well).

Assessment of the Odyssey

I finished The Odyssey earlier this month, but I've been slack on my digitization and compiling of my notes on this here blog. But, I'm trying to catch up. Here is what I wrote, in my Goodreads review.

What a slog! Going back to back on The Iliad and The Odyssey. Don't get me wrong, they are both great. They're just big, wordy books. I think that I prefer The Odyssey, but just slightly.

There are a number of great stories wrapped up into The Odyssey. Some are triumphant, others gory, others happy and some sad. The whole thing oozes emotion. One short little one stuck out to me thought. The little interaction between Argos, Odysseus' dog, was especially poignant. In that tiny bit of a minor passage you see how Homer can weave contradictory powerful emotions together into a unity.

Assessment of the Iliad

I finished The Iliad by Homer over my vacation and am nearly done with The Odyssey. Once upon a time I had read The Odyssey but I don't think I've ever read the unabridged version of The Iliad. Here was my quick goodreads assessment:

"There are few storytellers throughout history who can spar with Homer. The Iliad is a riveting tale of war, love, hate and every emotion that lies between. My only complaint about this book (and this is true of many ancient works or epic poetry in general) is when a commander or a god informs some underling or mortal of some plan of action and on the next page that underling or mortal relays that message in full. The repetition is sometimes a bit much. Otherwise it's a great story, full of complex characters".

It's really amazing to see the violent swings in emotions in the characters in the story. I found myself at times really rooting against Achilles or Agamemnon. Achilles seemed a spoiled brat and Agamemnon is just really unlikeable at times. But then Agamemnon sort of redeems himself. Achilles really doesn't redeem himself too much in the story. I know it's a cultural thing - but I just find Achilles' petulance his most remarkable characteristic.

The Four Socratic Dialogues of Plato

I finished The Four Socratic Dialogues of Plato last night after nearly two months of reading it at a start and stop pace. This was my Goodreads entry: "My goodness! That took me a long time to read! I'll admit I was a bit slack; but, goodness gracious. I like to have two books going at a time - a story format and a non-story, non-fiction one. (When I'm on my A game I have a third religious one going too). But I have utterly neglected that latter two recently.

Anyway, this has four of Plato's dialogues in it: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. All of them are good. I think Apology and Phaedo are stellar. This is the second and third reading of each dialogue in my recent attempt to read all of Plato cycle. What makes this particular book so great is that it is a Benjamin Jowett translation (one that most other translations look to) with Jowett's own notes and prefaces. It's an edition from 1928 based on the first printing from 1903. If you're lucky enough like me to find one collecting dust in a long-neglected corner of some rundown bookshop for $4 bucks snap it up!

Half-Hearted Creatures

There is a tendency in this age (Lewis states) for us to substitute a negative term for a positive one. I cannot speak for this age; but, I can for myself agree with Lewis. He takes for example the notion of Unselfishness as a virtue replacing Love. To be unselfish is to deny ourselves some good for other's. To Love that other is to do something positive for that other (which may include some self-denial). But, the purpose or intention is totally different and because of that so is the psychological outcome. I may be unselfish with my wife and not do the thing that I wanted to do. She may derive some pleasure from that. In the long-term I will not and will grow bitter. But, if I do something for my wife out of love and she derives pleasure from it, I will derive pleasure from hers and will be acting in love and inherently selflessly.

Interestingly, Lewis points out that we do not suffer from an overactive or too strong sense of desire. God does not want to curb our desires or to weaken them. Instead he wants to repurpose them and strengthen it. "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased" (Lewis, 109).

I am far too easily pleased, fooling around with all sorts of trivialities. I am that child playing in the mud because I cannot envision the trip to the Ocean that God has offered me. Lord, help me to see the higher things. Take away not my desire, but my ability to be satiated by lesser things than you.

Closer to God or Closer to Hell?

Screwtape notes that whether "love, or patriotism, or celibacy, or candles on altars, or teetotalism, or education, are 'good' or 'bad'. Can't you see there's no answer? Nothing matters at all except the tendency of a given state of mind, in given circumstances, to move a particular patient at a particular moment nearer to the Enemy or nearer to us" (Lewis, 106).

It is both very chilling and very calming to realize that nothing in and of itself that I can do is essentially the wrong thing (aside from the obvious sins that I commit). It is chilling because in my moments of strength of mind when I focus hard and actually do some studying of intellectual things that I can be erring if those things are leading me in the opposite direction of God. It is also very calming to thing that if I am in a good state, and in moderation doing something as relaxing and banal  as cooking a dinner, or playing FIFA that if I am not moving towards Hell I am ebbing closer to God. It's a double-edged sword. I believe that God allows us relaxation and the chance to do the things we enjoy (for me studying philosophy or creating in the kitchen). But, and I speak fully for myself, if I attend those things at the expense of attending towards God then those things that He has given to me as a way of relaxation or of feeling good doing I am putting a distance between He and I. He is immovable and thus, I am the one backing away. It is important for me to remember that it is God who has given me my interests, hobbies and relaxation moments. At this moment I want to remember that and thank Him for His generosity and to ask Him to remind me or nudge me if I am doing them at such a fervor to neglect the giver for the sake of the gifts.

The Essential Vice

Pride or Self-Conceit is the chief vice of creation. "According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind" (Lewis, 87).

Pride is essentially competitive by nature. The man that is proud of his wealth, his house or his beautiful wife is not actually proud of those things. He is proud that he is wealthier than so-and-so, that his house is the largest on the block and that in his circle of friends his wife is more beautiful than all the others. If everyone were equally rich, with an equally palatial house and equally beautiful wives the proud man would not be proud. The key to ridding oneself of Pride then is remove the competition. Lewis states that the Christian virtue opposed to Pride is Humility. I wonder if it isn't contentment.

Pride never brings two together. Pride always means enmity, enmity between man and man and enmity between man and God. When you get to know God you realize that He is something that is immeasurably superior to yourself in every aspect. If one does not recognize this fact, one does not know God. "As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you" (Lewis, 90).

"Pride is a spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense" (Lewis, 92). Pride is the primary sin. It requires very little other than the awareness of the self and of God. It then places the self ahead of God. All other sins than flow forth from pride. "It is the fall in every individual life, and in each day of each individual life, the basic sin behind all particular sins: at this very moment you ad I are either committing it, or about to commit it, or repenting it" (Lewis, 104).

An interesting take on the problem of evil and free will

Lewis notes that the devil has set himself up as the prince of this world. He also notes that this is either God's will (which would be strange) or it is not God's will (if it is not then how can anything happen that isn't the will of an all powerful God). He uses an interesting analogy to explain this. Take for instance a Mother who wants her children to keep their rooms tidy. However, to teach the children responsibility she isn't going to force them to tidy their rooms every day after supper. Days later she goes up to the room and finds things strewn all across the room and it in disrepair. It is both the will and not the will of the Mother that finds this set of circumstances existent. So it is with God. God desires us to live in accordance with Him and yet He does not force that upon anyone. The same is true in any type of organization. The boss may want something done but sets it up to be done voluntarily. If only half the people do what the boss wants it is both his will and not his will

The Wrath of God

Read any of the comment sections on any article that will elicit arguments (which is nearly every article these days ranging from politics to what type of lunch a celebrity is eating) and soon enough you will come across someone arguing, often from a position of spite, about the Wrath of God. Inevitably you will get a number of responses, the two most common of which are mockery and an argument for an enlightened, merciful God. The first will state something along the lines of, "why believe in a magic man in the sky" or "I can't believe modern men still believe some silly book written 2,000 years ago". These arguments aren't generally worth having in the best of circumstances. Trying to have a sincere discussion about the existence of God through internet commentary is simply a fool's errand. The second type of argument supposes God as being more merciful than the hate-spewing, self-righteous 'explicative deleted' fear and hate-mongerer. These will take the line of, "God is loving and therefore loves all men" or "Jesus never mentioned XYZ, who are you to judge" or "If God were truly an all-loving God he would never punish so-and-so for such-and-such". Arguing these in Internet commentary is as fool-hardy a task. Therefore, I'll go to a much better forum to argue them - an Internet blog.

Reality check - Pinning 95 theses on a church door this is not.

Jokes and humor aside, Lewis illustrates the real cause of this second type of argument perfectly well in his March 5th devotion. When we truly feel a sense of shame about something we have done, when we have exhausted all possible excuses and come to the realization that we have done something wrong then we realize that "our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being" (Lewis, 73). Basically, when we face up to our sinful nature we come to the realization that if there exist an all-good God, that being must necessarily punish us for such wickedness. If He didn't punish such wickedness than there wouldn't be any point in acknowledging such a being because it would be wicked itself. "When we merely say that we are bad, the 'wrath' of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God's goodness" (Lewis, 73). The moment we recognize our sinfulness or our badness we realize that an all-good God must necessarily have wrath against such actions and actors. Recognition of this fact takes us out of the illusory world in which we can say that the wrath of God would be satiated by the love of God. The love of God is a part of his absolute Goodness. Absolute goodness demands goodness in others. When there is badness or sinfulness the Absolute goodness demands wrath. God's wrath and love come from the same place.

Morality in C.S. Lewis

There are two ways in which a human being can go wrong
1) Either drifting apart or colliding with another human being to cause damage
2) Either drifting away from or having one's own desires come into conflict with one another

If both of these are avoided however, there still needs to be a destination in mind. There must needs be a final end to human life.

Morality is a three pronged thing:
1) Living in peace with other individuals
2) Fixing the inside (virtues or vices) of each individual
3) "The general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for" (Lewis, 70)

The Holiness of God is More than Moral Perfection

Lewis states that the Holiness of God is more than and something other than moral perfection and that his call to us is something more than moral duty. That however, is not an excuse for us to not act in a moral way. He notes that the Law is insufficient and meant to be transcended. However, he states that the Law can only be transcended by those who have tried to live up to it and realized how utterly inept one is to living out its precepts. Basically, in order to transcend morals, one has to truly try to live morally and fail, reach out to God and through God one will transcend the thou shall and thou shall not legalism of moral duty. Of course, Lewis puts it ever so elegantly stating, "The road to the promised land runs past Sinai" (Lewis, 65).

Lewis - Objective Right and Wrong

There is a real right and a real wrong. Lewis calls this the Law of Nature. He states that every man and every nation believes this - even if they are mistaken about what the real right or real wrong actually is. His evidence is the fact that while many men or nations may state that there is no objective right and wrong, the moment which they feel wronged they undercut their arguments against a real right and wrong. Likewise, he states that the very fact that we make excuses for when we have acted wrongly (or we have acted in a way that other's perceive as wronging them) proves that everyone believes in a real right and wrong. If they didn't have such a belief they would not feel the need to excuse away behavior.

Catching up with CS Lewis (again)

I'm terrible at this daily reading thing. I'm on my A Year with C.S. Lewis kick again. It's July 2 and I'm only on February 23. I probably won't catch up today. But we're going to get closer to being on track.

Lewis notes that the Original Sin that our remote ancestors committed wasn't something sexual in nature. In fact he suggests that the corrupt sinful nature we have now is a direct result of the fall. The Original Sin was related to the danger of the self. We sin when we place our self above God. Essentially, the whole of human history and all of its issues are on account of misplacing our priorities. "All that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy" (Lewis, 59).

Basically, what Lewis is stating is that our Original Sin was substituting our self for God, trading true happiness for something temporary and fleeting. Lewis terms this the turning from God to self. In turning from God to self, the original sin is the creature denying and acting on that denial of the creatures true position in the created order. Lewis calls this turning from God to self the 'self-will'. It is a danger inherent to creatures with Free Will. Lewis remarks that God chose, in His wisdom, to create the world as such - it was a risk that God apparently thought worth taking. In Screwtape Letters the demon writes, "When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the glamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever" (Lewis, 61).

In committing the Original Sin (and whenever we place ourselves above God) we turn to self-will. That self-will is a direct contradiction to the purposes we were created for. As Screwtape says, when we deny the self-will, and surrender our wills to His, we become more ourselves than ever.

The Screwtape Letters

I just finished The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis for the first time as an adult. This is what I wrote in my Goodreads blurb: "Lewis is a wonderful read anytime of the day. That he can pack so much sound theology, care for his fellow man and relevant Biblical principles into a satire from a demon's point of view shows what a gifted writer he was. I think I read this when I was a child the last time (pre-high school). At that point I hadn't been faced with or succumbed to so many temptations. Now in my early 30s I understand the temptations and barbs out there. As a Christian it's easy enough not to commit most of the "big" ones; but, the more nuanced temptations to despair, or self-righteousness or "Christianity and ___" have often overcome me. This book came along to me at a fairly low time in both my spiritual and temporal life. It's not a fix all of course; but, it was a pick me up, slap me around and point me back in the right direction. Hopefully I'll be smart enough to keep heading in that way".

Some of the best parts of the book are the more nuanced sins we as humans can fall to. It's eye opening to say the least. In letter XXV Screwtape writes "The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christian...What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity and'. You know - Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing" (Lewis, 117).

There are two major things packed into here. First, it's a very pertinent thing to current events (and current events throughout the history of politics). Every election cycle we get to the point that I wonder if Christianity has been turned into the sub-category of some cause to be elected. Without beating a dead horse the farcical speech that President Trump gave at Liberty University is case-in-point of when Christianity has been used as a means and not the end itself. President Trump has been the punching bag from every political side. I'm not going to continue that trend. The only difference between Trump and most other modern politicians is how blatantly he donned Christianity for political purposes. Second, there is the horror of the Same Old Thing.

Throughout the book Screwtape instructs Wormwood to instill the fear of the Same Old Thing. This hits me more on a personal level than a theological one. I struggle heavily with this fear. I get easily bored and that's when I do stupid things. I fear the monotony of daily life. This leads into the next and final passage I'll share here. "But, if only he can be kept alive, you have time itself for your ally. The long, dull monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather. You see, it is so hard for these creates to persevere" (Lewis, 130). How true that is! "The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hope, the quest despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we create in their lives and the inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it - all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition" (Lewis, 130). I am certainly neither as eloquent nor as learned as Lewis. I'll add nothing to this other than to hold my hand up and say, I know this feeling. But even in this season of self-inflicted trouble, or especially because of it, I am trying not to hit despair. Therefore, I won't end on that note. I'll end on a hope to persevere.

Hebrews 12:1-3

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart".

This is my prayer today. I am surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Lord, help me to throw off that which hinders me and the sin that has already entangled me. Give me the clarity to run the race and helped me to fix my eyes on Jesus. Let me consider Him so that I am no longer weary and my heart can be made anew.

Confession

I cannot find book eleven anywhere. I'm slightly annoyed by this. On another note - I'm struggling deeply with my demons. It's truly terrifying to look into my mind at these times. There is the obvious struggle - I can't stop over drinking. My hands are shaking and my stomach turns. I fear that I am physically killing myself. There isn't any pain. I'm just aware that things are breaking down in my body at a faster rate than it should.

The biggest fear is the mental one. I can physically mask the mistakes. Erin knows. I try to shield her. I try to hide it from her. She thinks that it's me trying to hide it so I won't get caught and face the consequences. I hide it because... (Do you know?)

I hurt everywhere.

When I drink I control time. Time stretches and contracts according to my will while I'm drinking. I can never get back to the time before I had ever drank - but, I come close. I woke up at 330 this morning. I went to work at 9. That five and a half hours lasted a life time. I don't know how to explain it. It felt like it lasted two days and yet, it could have only been 30 minutes.

I hurt everywhere.

The biggest fear is the mental one. I can physically alter the world. I can physically alter myself. Everybody knows. I try to shield them. I try to hide it from them. They think that it's me trying to hide it so I won't get caught and face the consequences. I hide it because I know the truth. I think a lot about how life would be without me.  I don't want to sound self absorbed or overly confident - this post won't lend itself any other way though. I think a lot about how others would be without me. It would be a horrible loss at first. I am a good son. I am a good husband. I am a good employee. I am good at what I do. But, after the initial sadness and loss the people I'm close to would be better without me. I think about this all the time. It weighs me down. It is a rough realization to learn that you are a burden to your loved ones. It is a rough realization to learn that and be too cowardly to live up to those obligations. It weighs me down. I think about this all the time.

I hurt everywhere.

I don't want to post this. I don't want to read this years from now and relive this horror. I especially don't want you to read this and realize that I was struggling so hard in my final days. That terrifies me. I'm lucky we don't own a gun. I couldn't do it another way. I'm too scared. I want too much to accomplish things. I don't want to cause you any more pain. I want to make you proud. But, I think about this all the time. It weighs me down.

I hurt. Everywhere.

The Street of Crocodiles

There is a whole lot going on in this book. Simultaneously, there is a whole lot of nothing going on. I kind of think that it fits that way. As a collection of short stories there are obviously going to be ones that are better and ones that are worse, this book is no different. Schulz has a great mind for interesting depictions of what would be otherwise mundane events (consider The Night of the Great Season). He also has the surrealist sense of the absurd (consider Birds, my personal favorite).

Overall it was a pretty good book. Some of the parts were really, really funny. Some of the seemed to ramble on a bit and arrive at nowhere. Sometimes that nowhere was worth the journey, Sometimes the rambling wasn't worth the nowhere.

The Discovery of America by the Turks - First Reading

Again I find myself frustrated by the lack of a half-star option on Goodreads. Goodreads, if you read the reviews on your app, I beseech you, give us a half-star option.

This is the second Amado book I've read. It was quite a surprise in how different this one was to The Violent Land . It starts out a bit confusing and jumbled; but, it ends quite well. It's a bawdy, raucous tale. Amado notes toward the end that God is a Brazilian. IF man was created in the image of God the Brazilian  then this book captures perfectly what His creation would be like. It's a very funny read and at less than 80 pages totally worth the short time it takes to read!

1984 - First Reading

I'm not quite sure how I went my whole life without having been forced to read this book or having not picked it up on my own considering both its stats as a classic and how much I love Animal Farm. But given its resurgence in the wake of a Trump election and the renewed interest in Far Right political movements I thought I might give it a go. To be utterly honest. I found a lot of it boring and underwhelming as story. As a political ideology piece it's fascinating; but, there is quite a bit to be desired in the overall novel aspect.

The term Orwellian has been tossed at Trump and his supporters a lot since the election. I don't think that's quite a fair assessment. Trump may want to and tries to employ a bit of revisionist history and certainly the alt-right media definitely spins the news events to their own end. But, I don't think Trump or any of the alt-right figures out there today has the mastery of intellect that O'Brien had over Winston. In some respects, like the power for power's sake and the hate, I think the comparison comes a bit closer. But, as far as manipulating history to make it matcha  current political agenda the Left is as equally Orwellian as the right in modern America.

The most interesting parallel with current events and the state of Oceania that occurred to me was in the collectivism and newspeak that was slated to be in full force by 2050. What is closer to this Orwellian dystopia than the current (or relatively recent or relatively to come) political apparatus of the United States is the state that exists online. Freedom is slavery, at least online. Few participate openly in the hate the way they do online. And nowhere matches the collective mindset on threads following news stories or Facebook posts. As far as the creation of a new language slated to entrench itself by 2050 one need not look further than twitter to see that this future is already beginning. Hashtag truth.

Violent Land - First Reading

This was truly a great story to read, utterly gripping. I found myself rooting for both sides and against them as well, depending on the circumstances. It was good to read a more serious and more traditional story after having read two Queneua books in a row. It was also extremely gratifying to read a story that takes place in a setting I know so very little about. In spite of my comprehensive lack of knowledge concerning Brazilian history and the cacao rush that this book entails I felt transported to that region and time by Amado - That is the hallmark of a fantastic storyteller and a good book.

Zazie in the Metro - First Reading

Zazie in the Metro was the fifth book I've read of Queneau. On GoodReads I gave one five stars (The Flight of Icarus); three I gave four stars, (We Always Treat Women too Well, The Blue Flowers and Exercises in Style); Zazie, I gave only three. As mentioned elsewhere, I love Queneau's rambling works as they meander through side streets of his work only to find themselves in the last paragraph to come to a tidy, if somewhat random ending. Somehow, improbably all the loose ends are tied up or at least left me to feel like they were not worth exploring any more in the stories I gave four stars or more. Exercises in Style wasn't one of them - it's four star rating was based on pure wordplay alone.

Queneau wrote in French. Je suis désole je ne parle pas français. (Thanks google). Obviously, I'm reading the translations and thus, I find it odd that the wordplay is one of the pillars as to why I love Queneau's work. But, he explores language so well (and his translators are very intent on bringing that out in the translations) that even one pace removed from him I feel his message coming through loud and clear. "Howcanaystinksotho, wondered Gabriel" is how the novel opens. The colloquialisms and text written to mirror dialect, slang and speech as written word is fascinating to read. Exercises in Style is delving directly into this process over and over and over again. Zazie wades Queneau's toes into the water while dunking us in upside down. It's that dunking that makes Zazie enjoyable. Unfortunately, I found the story lacking.

I read somewhere on GoodReads somebody who has similar books read as I do reviewed either The Blue Flowers or We Always Treat Women Too Well as something that needn't have been translated to English. He waxed poetic about Zazie, but said one of the aforementioned titles was a lackluster work not worthy of translation to English by an otherwise fantastic author. I wholeheartedly disagree - but, I titled this blog post as Zazie In The Metro - First Reading as the First Reading for a reason...

Reading any kind of Queneau the first time demands a second reading. Zazie on the Metro is no exception. There's a whole lot in this book to unpack. At the end of the day though, if you asked me what this book has done to me, I would say, that it has aged me.

We Always Treat Women Too Well

I really enjoy Raymond Queneau and We Always Treat Women Too Well is no exception. I gave it four stars on GoodReads, noting, "Not my favorite Queneau book; but, it has all the familiar trappings of his work. I love his style and the way he plays with words. The humor and absurdity is good and his pace is astounding to behold. As I said before, it's not my favorite one of his so far (The Flight of Icarus), but it's still an enjoyable read".

It's such a farce of a pulp novel that if you had never read Queneua you might've never known that it was satirizing the genre, while celebrating it. It's basically a play on Stockholm Syndrome where the captured woman turns the tables on her captors (the IRA). Sex plays a big part in the book and there are some disturbing imagery. But, much of it is done in the shroud of absurd humor. I like the absurdity and I find it fascinating to read. I think Queneau's pace is really good to read and in this one, like in The Flight of Icarus and The Blue Flowers all the weirdness gets wrapped up rather quickly into a neat little, albeit confusing, ending. Zazie In The Metro, one of Queneau's more celebrated novels doesn't wrap up as well as the other three mentioned in this post. It's probably why I didn't rate it as highly as his others.

Goodreads Review of We Always Treat Women Too Well

Goodreads review:

Not my favorite Queneau book; but, it has all the familiar trappings of his work. I love his style and the way he plays with words. The humor and absurdity is good and his pace is astounding to behold. As I said before, it's not my favorite one of his so far (The Flight of Icarus); but, it's still an enjoyable read.

Lottery

Do a short story on Plato's lottery for sex.

I imagine a very somber, melancholic room. Sex has been stripped of its fun. The lottery has been going on for centuries. Instead of creating excitement it now creates dread. When the lottery is drawn the couples perform in front of bored audiences. The woman is then sequestered until she is with child. If she doesn't conceive both the man and the woman are released from the lottery system. They are thrown out into the free love room. This is where I want to do the myth of the cave kind of story. I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I am picturing an aesthetic similar to Dogville by Lars von Trier...

I'm not sure where this will go (if anywhere) but there you have it future Chris. Good luck with this one...

The Salmon of Doubt

With a name like The Salmon of Doubt I wasn't sure what to expect. I mean, I've read nearly every major work of Douglas Adams, but this one wasn't giving any clues as to what was going to happen by the title. That's just a part of the charm in this book.

Here's my Goodreads review: This book is an anthology; therefore it's impossible to review as a whole. The Dirk Gently draft at the end is very humorous and very unfinished. I understand why Adams struggled a bit with it. It certainly felt mixed up between The Hitchhiker world and The Gently world. Had he finished the novel it would have been on par with most of his other work, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

The other bits of this book are essays, interviews and just random scraps of thoughts found on Adams' macs after he passed away. I'll tell you my favorites were some of his little blurbs as they gave me some insight into his thinking. That was fun. His essays were what you'd expect from anyone who writes essays. They fell on a spectrum. I don't adhere to all of Adams' worldview, but some of his arguments for it were weightier than others (much as some theistic arguments are weightier than others). The interviews are as good as the interviewer was. 

Some of the highlights for me are the biscuits at the train station because that is flat out one of the funniest stories I've ever read, the puddle analogy against a teleological worldview because it makes me think even when I disagree and his story about the manta rays because it highlights how good stories can be about nature. If more conservationists were like Adams there would be less need of them.

I really did enjoy much of the book. There were parts that had me rolling and laughing out loud to myself. Then there were parts that were humdrum. Here are some of my favorite parts in my first reading (I plan on rereading it at least 41 times to get to the meaning of everything). In writing some of this, I hope to glean some of the storytelling tricks Adams uses to employ in my own writing.

Fifteen Second Timespan

In describing himself and his nose Adams writes, "One of the more curious features of my nose is that it doesn't admit any air. This is hard to understand or even believe. The problem goes back a very long way to when I was a small boy living in my grandmother's house. My grandmother was the local representative of the RSPCA, which meant the house was always full of badly damaged dogs and cats, even the occasional badger, stoat, or pigeon. Some of them were damaged physically, some psychologically, but the effect they had on me was to seriously damage my attention span. Because the air was thick with animal hair and dust, my nose was continually inflamed and runny, and every fifteen seconds I would sneeze. Any though I could not explore, develop, and bring to some logical conclusion within fifteen second would therefore be forcibly expelled from my head, along with a great deal of mucus"(Adams, 13). 

P.G. Wodehouse

Douglas Adams and I both have a strong affinity for Kurt Vonnegut. Adams lists his favorite authors as Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Kurt Vonnegut, P.G. Wodehouse and Ruth Rendell. I'll admit to have never heard of Rendell or Wodehouse. Wodehouse is now however on my periphery as someone I'd like to read. (Rendell doesn't really strike me as all that interesting and while I may get around to reading something of hers and have my mind completely blown, I've got a lot of other books I want to read until I get to hers). Dickens is fantastic. He is very wordy and very descriptive, which slows down my reading; but, there is no denying his incredible storytelling. Jane Austen is on my list for 2017. And, as previously stated, Vonnegut is one of my favorites. Adams writes about P.G. Wodehouse's last novel, Sunset at Blandings, as being unfinished, "It is unfinished not just in the sense that it suddenly, heartbreakingly for those of us who love this man and work, stops in mudflow, but in the more important sense that the text up to that point is unfinished. A first draft for Wodehouse was a question of getting the essential ingredients of a story organized - its plot structure, its characters and their comings and goings, the mountains they climb and the cliffs they fall off. It is the next stage of writing - the relentless revising, refining, and polishing - that turned his works into the marvels of language we know and love" (Adams, 63). Sadly, and rather poignantly, this is somewhat how I feel about The Salmon of Doubt (at least the Dirk Gently part).

Life as a matter of opinion & The predestined puddle

I find it somewhat unsettling that I am frequently drawn to writers and thinkers that I am thoroughly at odds with on some fundamental level. Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy was what got me into philosophy in the first place and I've read much of his other work as well. Vonnegut and Adams are among my favorite authors from the relatively contemporary period we live in. Voltaire is one of my favorite authors of all time. Russell, Vonnegut and Adams were all atheists and Voltaire wasn't exactly friendly to orthodox Christianity. I don't know why I seem to be drawn to those who have such vastly different views from me on things that are as crucial and foundational as a belief in God, but I am. I think that is because I'm drawn to interesting writing and ideas and while I may agree with a sermon by the average preacher, unless they present it in an interesting manner I simply nod along. With Adams, he makes strong arguments for atheism that are challenging and I like to be challenged. In his speech Is there an artificial god? he notes, "without a god, life is only a matter of opinion" (Adams, 128). I think that he's right. If there is no god, the definition of everything becomes subjective - including the fundamental question of what is living and what is not. I find his notion of where did the idea of God come from as somewhat shallow, man looks around and sees a great world and as masters of that great world it must be made for us. I don't find that very convincing or challenging. He makes other points that are challenging. This just isn't one of them. But, the notion that the meaning of life is purely subjective without the existence of God is an intriguing philosophical problem to me. His parable of the puddle is a better nuanced version of this argument. The puddle finds itself in a hole exactly the shape that is suited for it and thinks that this world was made for him. As the puddle evaporates it hangs on to the notion for dear life that the world is made for him, even as he is receding into nothingness. That's a challenging idea. That's a difficult one for the theistic minded man to contend with. It calls for better apologetics (but not new theology). 

The Cookies Story at the Train Station

This might be one of my favorite bits of the book. Adams states that in 1976 he went to a train station and bought a bag of biscuits and a paper and sat down across from a man. The man opened a package of biscuits and began to eat one. Adams, in shock at having someone eat one of his biscuits, doesn't say anything but eats a biscuit himself. This back and forth goes on until the whole package is finished. The other man leaves without having said a word to Adams. Adams is in disbelief as to what had just happened (as was, presumably, the other man). When Adams finally gets up to go he picks up the paper to discover the packet of biscuits he bought is actually under his newspaper. "The thing I like particularly about this story is the sensation that somewhere in England there has been wandering around for the last quarter-century a perfectly ordinary guy who's had the same exact story, only he doesn't have the punch line" (Adams, 151). This is seriously one of the funniest things I've ever read.

The Letter to David Vogel at Walt Disney

When Adams and Disney are having problems with making Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into a movie, Adams writes Vogel about the lack of communication between them and how it's making it difficult. So he ends the letter with a plead to get together to discuss the movie and a page and a half of ways of reaching Adams. He gives him his email, assistant's number, office fax, his home number, UK cell phone, US cellphone, his French home number, his wife's office number, his film agent's number, his book agent's number (office, home and other office), his producer's number, his director's number (office, home and cellphone), another woman's office, home and cellphone number, his UK producer's number (office, home and cell), his mother's number, his sister's work and home number, his nanny's number, his next door neighbor's number (work and home) and some 'restaurants I might conceivably be at', including the telephone number for Sainsbury's '(supermarket where I shop; they can always page me)' and his website. Too funny. "[Editor's Note: This letter had the desired effect. David Vogel responded, resulting in a productive meeting that pushed the movie forward]" (Adams, 171). Who says sarcasm never worked?

I also enjoyed his incomplete novel and his short story about Genghis Khan, but that is enough for now.

Some of Lewis' thoughts on Free Will (and a short story idea)

God decided to create the world in such a way that man had free will. For what reason would God choose to create a world in which free will exists, knowing as He did, it could end up going very badly (as it did indeed)? "Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

God could have created a world where man had free will but chose to erase the Original Sin. But, if God had used some sort of magical eraser to erase the Original Sin or hit the reset button, then He would have continued to have to do it to erase the inevitable Second Original Sin, Third Original Sin, Fourth Original Sin, and so on ad infinitum. But, if He had opted for this course than either the world would have never really gotten going or eventually whatever umpteenth number Original Sin would have eventually started off the course at which we found ourselves.

Lewis states that some people claim to be able to imagine a world in which there is Free Will but no possibility of evil. Lewis denies this. Basically he states that in order to have a world with Free Will but with no possibility for the misusage of Free Will God would have to intervene at an infinite rate to produce miracles after miracles in such a way that they would disrupt the natural order of His creation. There would be no laws of physics or any kind of natural law because God would have to constantly intervene whenever someone tried to do something wrong. The way Lewis writes about this gives me a funny idea for a short story involving Cain and Abel.

The Unfortunate Events of Cain and Abel

Say God had decided to intervene with his magic original sin eraser. After about the three thousandth time of erasing the Original Sin God finally gets fed up with Adam and Eve and casts them out of the Garden. But, after awhile he decides to get back up to the whole reset button and magic eraser routine until Cain and Abel are ready to make their sacrifices. God accepts Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain is so angry at Abel he calls him every name under the sun, but God, in order to spare the evil from polluting the world alters the sound waves so that Abel doesn't hear all the threats that Cain is making. The problem here becomes twofold. First, it further angers Cain. Second, it leaves Abel completely unaware that his brother is furious with him and wants to kill him. He accepts Cain's overtures to go hang out in the rock pit. Whereupon Cain picks up a rock in anger and tries to hit Abel upside the head, but God quickly changes the law of physics so that whatever Cain throws at Abel will end up harmless. The rock flies at Abel who is suddenly popped in the head with a Watermelon, leaving him stunned, but chuckling. He picks up a rock and pummels Cain with it. God however is so tired of this whole magic eraser business and is busy telling the Holy Spirit his frustration that he doesn't notice Abel throwing the rock at Cain and since He only changed the laws of physics to protect Abel from Cain's sin, Abel inadvertently slew Cain. Totally bemused with his first family and his ill-fated attempts to create perfect children with Free Will he decides to hit the reset button and leaves them Free Will and devises a different plan to get them out of the inevitable mess they'll make.

Lewis, however, is a bit more serious minded than I am. He contends that a world where Free Will exists and God changes their mistakes before they become sin would not only create a world where wrong actions are impossible, but where freedom of the will would become impossible. He also makes a fascinating point about being upset with God for creating a world with the possibility of such evil. He argues that we have no right and no real standing when we argue against God on this matter. God is the very source of our reasoning power, so to use our reasoning power to try and argue against him is not only fruitless, it's a little bit like chopping off the branch we're sitting on to spite the tree. The Tree is still going to be standing once we crashed out onto the ground.

God is the gasoline

Lewis makes a great analogy in Mere Christianity. He states that God made us, like we made automobiles. We designed cars to run on gasoline (or diesel). God designed us to run on Himself. "He Himself is the fuel our spirits were  designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other". Lewis points out that when we try to make ourselves happy in any other way we are doomed to failure. We can't get true happiness apart from God. God is the gasoline that makes us go.

Jesus' teachings as political policy

"The second thing to get clear is that Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying 'Do as you would be done by' to a particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar. It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and science: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

I think in the course of this blog it is becoming clear that I am somewhat disgusted by the politicization of Christianity in the current state of affairs in the US. We have a leader, who uses Christianity as a way of garnering votes and favor. That is nothing new or even worse than others have done in the past. His reading of Two Corinthians only showed that he is less comfortable with using the language of Christians to win political favor with them than past politicians. What is worse and a more dangerous situation are the Christian politicization of their faiths. When you try to shoehorn your faith to fit in a box, be it socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc., you are trying to put in a relationship with the infinite into a finite container. It's just not going to work. You're going to have to peel off a bit here, trim off a bit there to make it work. It isn't even like putting a square peg into a round hole - it's like trying to put the thing with the holes into the square peg. It just doesn't work and the results are divisive inside the Church.

The divisiveness in American politics has seeped into the American conscious so ravenously we can't have polite conversations about anything meaningful. That's sad. It's bad for the country as a whole because it's going to stagnate the country and most of its population. Divisiveness in the Church is far worse. It's going directly against Scripture:

1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought"

Romans 12:16 "Live in harmony with one another"

Galatians 5:26 "Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another"

I'm not saying that there won't be political disagreements between Christians. There will be because each side has elements that mesh with our Christian faith. Each side has things that are not exactly lined up with Christianity. Furthermore, the art of government has things that must be done that have absolutely nothing to do with our faith in God. Agree with one another on the things of God and the other stuff won't matter. The side that wins in an election should not be boastful. Don't challenge one another on everything. That's the way of the world. We're not supposed to be in the world.

Galatians 5:15 "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other"

We are going to destroy one another in the Church if we get to wrapped up in politics. People living in a modern state are going to have disagreements on what that Modern State should look like. The Modern State is pretty damn complex with thousands upon thousands of issues that could and are debated. But, if we as Christians keep on biting at each other, we're going to destroy ourselves. If we bicker like non-Christians do among ourselves then we are being controlled by the sin nature; we are living just like the people of the world (One Corinthians 3:3). If we can't come to an agreement on everything in the political realm that's ok, so long as we come to live in harmony with one another and agree on the salvation through Christ Jesus. If we can't speak about politics in a peaceful and harmonious way with one another then we ought to just cut political discussions out of the Church. Let's listen to the Proverbs.

Proverbs 17:14 "Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out"

More catching up with Lewis

The entire thing that Christianity offers is to become a little Christ. "The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nothing else" (Lewis, Mere Christianity). In this way we can become sons of God, share in the kind of life that Jesus had and share in the glory that the Father has set up for him.

Jesus calls himself humble and meek. But, some of his claims, like, "your sins are forgiven" are not humble or meek at all if they come from a mere man. But, because Jesus is God, the act of forgiving sins, rather than punishing them is a testament to his humility and meekness.

Lewis has no time for people that allow for Jesus to be merely a great moral teacher. "Let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. he has not left that open to us. He did not intend to" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

If Jesus was just a moral teacher than he is not special. If we took Jesus' advice and set up the world based on it we would live in a happier world. But, that would be true if we took up Plato's, Aristotle's or even Confucius' advice. "If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

Jesus taught the Golden Rule of the New Testament - do as you would to others as you would do to you. It's not new coming from Jesus. It's not even new coming from Christianity. Really, as all great moral teachers do, Jesus is pointing out something that we all know already deep in our being what is the right thing to do. Just because Jesus is proclaiming something we already know doesn't negate his message.

How the aliens got so greekish.

So why in the world would our main character come to find a planet (or a system of planets) where everything about it is so very much like the ancient Greeks? He is baffled about it. But, come to find out, they had some kind of access to the Oracle at Delphi and learned that the wisest human on earth at the time when they first discovered was a guy named Socrates. Now these aliens had always been incredibly mechanically inclined, building some of the finest spacecraft in the universe. But, as for all other aspects of life they were rather dull. When they heard the Oracle's pronouncement that Socrates was the wisest man in Greece by some odd and crazy coincidence they got down to the business of extracting this man from earth and bringing him to their home planet to impart his wisdom.

Not wanting to interfere with this species they really didn't know much about they did some reconnaissance and found the perfect time to extract him. They swapped out the hemlock with some kind of liquid that would trap the soul of the man into a box they had built for the very purpose of extending the life of someone who was about to die. It was a way of saving knowledge for future generations. They did this to Socrates and took him (or his soul rather) back to their home planet where Socrates did actually get to do what he wanted to do after death. He got to debate and teach and discuss in some blessed other world after his death on earth.

The Epicurus Jostler

I think at some point in the Future Modern Ancient Greeks the main character is going to have to acquire a spaceship. At the shop he's going to encounter all different types of craft that move on different principles.

One of the principles is going to be the 'jostling' motion. There will be a couple of different types of jostlers.

1) Epicurus' jostler - falling through space is the simplest motion so this craft will simple fall through space. very energy efficient. falling is eternal so it just goes and goes, very low maintenance. navigation is a bit, well, let's just say it is the perfect craft for the adventurer. It does have the swerve feature though...

I need to study the pre-socratics and their ideas on motion. Explore their ideas - create machines based on the paradoxes they create and then voice them out in the main character's interaction with the sellers of the crafts, which need to be based on used car dealers.

An obvious fact made clear

Still playing a little catch up on Lewis - sorry for the back-to-back nature of these posts.

In order to experience God we are going to have to get into that dance between the Trinity. We are going to have to participate to experience God. Lewis likens it to fire and warmth; or, he likens it to getting wet and water. If we want to get warm, we have to stand by the fire. If we want to get wet, we have to jump in the water. "If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

I find the Trinity very difficult to describe. Lewis claims to have this problem as well. But, Lewis also seems to be able to encapsulate some of what the Trinity is from time to time with strong metaphors. "They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

This post ends with a profound statement: "Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?" (Lewis, 47). If we take the Bible seriously about who God is then accepting Christ and being united to God means that we will live forever - that's a promise. What Lewis is pointing out is that if you tap into God it should be obvious that you're going to live forever because he is the very muchness of life. The opposite is then obviously true as well. If you aren't tapping in to the very muchness of life then how can you accept what Lewis is pointing out.

Lewis on equality

Lewis has an interesting idea on the notion of equality:

"It is idle to say that men are of equal value. If value is taken in a worldly sense - if we mean that all men are equally useful or beautiful or good or entertaining - then it is nonsense. If it means that all are of equal value as immortal souls, then I think it conceals a dangerous error. The infinite value of each human soul is not a Christian doctrine" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).

"If there is equality, it is in His love, not in us" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).

Let that sink in a moment. Lewis is claiming that if there is equality among human beings it is only that God loves us - all other equality is illusory. Not only that, he delights in inequality.

"As democracy becomes more complete in the outer world and opportunities for reverence are successively removed, the refreshment, the cleansing, and invigorating returns to inequality, which the Church offers us, become more and more necessary" (Lewis, ibid).

I'm not really sure what to make of this passage and I probably should read The Weight of Glory in full to give this context. But, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there is something fundamental in the make-up of the United States that is incredibly at odds with Christianity and we have tried to shoehorn the one into the other. Maybe it's the notion of democracy.

A stench that will come dangerously close to vaporizing your brain

I recently reread both Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. Douglas Adams is one of my favorite authors and I enjoy rereading his works over and over again because each time I do something in them catches my fancy in a way that didn't the last time I read it. There are a lot of little tangents to dutifully follow in his books and they often lead to dead-ends that somehow still must be followed to reach the final destination. I enjoy rereading g his books because I discover dead ends now and again that weren't there before. A prime example of this is when Kate meets Thor again for the second time.

"She didn't go straight home but set off instead in the opposite direction to get some milk and bin liners from the small corner shop in the next street. She agreed with the gentle-faced Pakistani who ran it that she did indeed look tired and should have an early night, but on the way back she made another small diversion to go and lean against the railings of the park, gaze into its darkness for a few minutes, and breathe some of its cold, heavy night air. At last she started to head back toward her flat. She turned into her own road, and  as she passed the first streetlamp it flickered and went out, leaving her in a small pool of darkness.

That sort of thing always gives one a nasty turn.

It is said that there is nothing surprising about the notion, for instance, of a person suddenly thinking about someone he hasn't thought about in years, and then discovering the next day that the person has in fact just died. There are always lots of people suddenly remembering people they haven't thought about for ages, and always lots of people dying. In a population the size of, say, America, the law of averages means that this particular coincidence must happen at least ten times a day, but it is none the less spooky to anyone who experiences it.

By the same token, there are light bulbs burning out in streetlamps all the time, and a fair few of them must go pop just as someone is passing beneath them. Even so, it still gives the person concerned a nasty turn, especially when the very next streetlamp they pass under does the same thing" (Adams, 116-117).

His law of averages paragraph is a total dead end; we got there, turned around and found Kate again in the very next paragraph; but, after having re-found her we understand her feeling all the more richly because of our brief jaunt to the end of a street that had nothing to do with our plot journey. We meander along with Adams and getter a fuller landscape of his world than if he simply took us from point a to b.

Another part in the book that really struck me this time is when Dirk met a god in the King's Cross station and suddenly noticed that god's awful smell. "The air which he unsettled as he stood, which flowed out from the folds of his skin and clothes, was richly pungent even to Dirk's numbed nostrils. It was a smell that never stopped coming at you - just as Dirk thought it must have peaked, so it struck on upward with renewed frenzy till Dirk thought that his very brain would vaporize" (Adams, 168-169). I just thought this part was very funny when I read it.

The Historical Jesus and The Political Jesus

I'm still playing catch up on my C.S. Lewis devotions, but I'm getting closer (only 20 days behind now...).

On two days in February the book references The Screwtape Letters and makes some pretty interesting points about the Historical Jesus and the commingling of Christianity and politics. On the former Lewis points out that what we know of the historical Jesus comes from one and only one source, the New Testament. Apart from that anything else is just conjecture and can be distorting to the message of the Scriptures. The demons in Screwtape are suggesting that they change the notion of what the historical Jesus is like every thirty years or so to match the age that is envisioning this historically more accurate Jesus. In the generations before Lewis they are seeing the historical Jesus as being a champion of liberal and humanitarian causes. In Lewis' time Jesus was being envisioned in a Marxist light. Because what we know of the historical Jesus comes from the Scriptures any reconstruction of a historical Jesus becomes very unhistorical very quickly. While Jesus probably would have championed some liberal and humanitarian causes and was as revolutionary as Marx was, any thesis stating that this was the message of the historical Jesus is a perversion of what the Jesus of the Scriptures taught. This is not only wrongheaded, it is dangerous for the spiritual well-being of the individual. Lewis writes, as the demonic voice, "The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist" (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters). As Christians our duty is to become Christlike - to become like the Jesus of the Scriptures. By reconstructing an historical Jesus from extra-biblical sources we run the risk of trying to emulate something that doesn't exist and stunt our walk with the real Jesus Christ.

The political aspect Lewis writes about is very interesting to me mainly because of the nightmare political situation we in America have been living for the past year and a half (and I fear there will be no end in sight). Some Christians think President Trump was the only choice that Christians could make while others thought President Trump was the only choice that Christians could not make. Honestly, I don't think it mattered in the sense of how your Christian faith is concerned. Neither American conservatism nor its liberalism has a completely synchronized view with the Scriptures. But, that isn't what I'm writing about today. What I'm writing about is the distraction that politics plays in the Christian life.

Lewis notes that the demons would certainly fear a true coalescence of Christian faith and governance because it would mean the establishment of a truly just and truly godly society. But, they do want "and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything - even social justice" (Lewis, 45). Much of the haranguing and bickering and nastiness surrounding the Christian embracement or rejection of President Trump has had the effect of making Christianity the means to something. President Trump himself is using Christianity as a means to his ends. I think it is perfectly reasonable for two devoted Christians to have entirely different ideas on how America ought to be governed. I think it is perfectly impossible to have this much animosity towards fellow Christians if Christianity is being seen as the ends of our walk in this political atmosphere.

Our faith necessarily must guide our political beliefs. And because Christianity was not designed as a political system for the governance of the United States and neither the current Republican platform nor the current Democratic platform (nor the historical platforms of either party, the Green Party, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Communists, the Federalists, the Constitutionalists, the Progressives, the No-Nothings, the Populist party of Maryland, the Tea Party, the Secessionists, the Whigs or, and this is especially important, the Founding Fathers of the United States) were solely derived out of Scriptural context they are not going to be perfectly mirrored. Christianity is the vehicle through which God reached down to man to offer him salvation. The political agenda of party x, y or z is the vehicle in which the ideas of how a nation ought to be governed. The mission and scope of these two things are drastically different. There will, of course, be overlapping between them because things like caring for the poor, the widows and the needy are both tenants of Christianity and the function of Government. There will also be overlap with things like theft, murder, and other things we are not to do as Christians and things that are illegal to do. But, the fact of the matter is there are plenty of things that do not overlap. Whether the government mandates that everyone purchase healthcare or decides to have a massive tax break for the wealthy fall clearly outside the scope of Christian theology.

It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that their understanding of God's call to take care of the needy informs them to elect someone who favors universal healthcare. Their faith in the Scriptures can inform their political belief. It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that it is their duty and not the duty of the government to take care of the needy and are inclined to vote for somebody that doesn't believe in universal health care provided by the state. Their faith in the Scriptures also informs their political belief. It is my even stronger belief that those two Christians can have political disagreement without the toxic environment that is currently suffocating the United States and causing strife between Christians if both these Christians are treating their faith as the ends instead of some kind of means to fulfilling their political vision for the United States.

Some thoughts on the Trinity

Lewis makes some interesting and unique points on the trinity at the center of the Christian faith.

First, he points out that God is love. Many people, even non-Christians love to claim that God is love.  In reality however, they are making the claim that love is God - whenever, however and to whatever end, when love arises in man we ought to regard that as sacrosanct and adore it. The Christian claim that God is love is vastly different than the world's same vapid pronouncement. When a Christian claims God is love, the Christian is claiming that a "dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created everything else" (Lewis, 41).

Second, by pointing out that God is love he notes that God must at least be two persons. If He were only one person, then He would not have been love prior to creation. The fact that God is love is evidence for at least a two-personed God, and in the case of Christianity, a triune one.

He makes an interesting point about the Father and the Son. The New Testament paints a good picture of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is clear and gives a good idea of what that relationship is. When we try to go further and give more in depth we struggle because we end up painting a picture of two separate things rather than one thing with two persons. "Naturally God knows how to describe Himself much better than we know how to describe Him" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

Lewis calls the Son, "the self-expression of the Father". He states that relationship between God the Father and Jesus the son is simple, "The Father delights in His Son; the Son looks up to His Father" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).

On the subject of the Holy Spirit, Lewis makes a startling analogy. When you get a group of individuals together like a family or a club you hear people talk about the 'spirit' of that family or club. That spirit is a naturally developed way of talking, a developed way of behaving and other qualities that wouldn't have developed had not it been for that union of individuals. The spirit of the family or club is like another member. Of course, it is not a real entity in the case of the family or club. But the union of Father and Son in love creates a Spirit and because Father and Son is God that Spirit is a real entity and the third person of the Trinity.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this analogy. On the one hand it's a good description of the Spirit. But on the other hand, it almost makes it seem like the Spirit is a created being. I'm on the fence about this one.

"If you think of the Father as something 'out there', in front of you, and the Son as someone standing at your side, helping you to pray, trying to turn you into another son, then you have to think of the third Person as something inside you, or behind you" (Lewis, Mere Christianity). Because the Holy Spirit works from inside you or behind you, he is harder to understand, harder to pin down.

No compartmentalizing.

In giving to God one must surrender all. We must become less so that He can become more inside us. If we try to hold on to a little area that is purely our own and not part of God in us, then we hold onto an area of death and refuse the life that God offers us. We shouldn't seek to have a God-part of our lives and an ordinary part for ourselves. In short, do not compartmentalize. I'm terrible at this. I am the quintessential compartmentalizer.

In the end, if you don't choose the Kingdom of God over anything else it will not matter what you have chosen. That's a hard thought. It means that if you choose money or women or alcohol or even positive things like a good job, ambition, education these are all the same in God's eyes - the wrong choice. Lewis puts it bluntly, "Does it matter to a man dying in a desert by which choice of route he missed the only well?" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).

Help me to get all my compartments filled with things of the Kingdom of God. Help me not to be distracted or to take hold of something as my own. Lewis thinks that you must fight against this on a daily basis, but in the end only God can fully force out our desire for 'limited liabilities' with God. We shouldn't sit back and let God do his thing. We ought to strive to accept the fullness of God in our daily devotions, confident that He will remove this desire for temporal things, the desire to compartmentalize and the desire to have something entirely of our own.

The bare minimum

I'm still playing catch up with C.S. Lewis. His notes for January 29-31 deal with a great temptation for the Christian - to try and reach the bare minimum requirements to be a good Christian. He likens our approach in this temptation to being a tax payer. "Our temptation is to look eagerly for the minimum that will be accepted. We are in fact very like honest but reluctant taxpayers. We approve of an income tax in principle. We are very careful to pay no more than is necessary. And we hope - we very ardently hope - that after we have paid it there will still be enough left to live on" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).

He talks about going to God in his daily devotions and proceeding with caution. He wants to have that experience with God, but he hopes that God doesn't ask him to do anything that will too seriously disrupt his 'normal' life. Lewis sees this as the temptation to hang on to the temporal things in life instead of grasping for the eternal. I know that I am guilty of this, quite guilty. Lord, help me not to achieve the bare minimum. Help me to not grasp for the temporal at the sake of the eternal.

Some Notes on Christianity from C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis states that the three things that spread the Christ-life (the new life in Christ) are baptism, belief and communion. Lewis states he doesn't know why this is the case, but he knows why he believes it is the case: Jesus says so. Lewis trusts the authority of Christ. He then makes a good apologetic for doing so. We trust things on authority all the time. Even though he had never been to New York, he trusts that there is such a place by the authority of others that have been there. "Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority... A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life" (Lewis, Mere Christianity)

It is pointless to seek comfort in Christianity as the first step. He believes that in the long run Christianity is a thing of 'unspeakable comfort' but to seek something out for its comfort rather than for its truth is both wrong and futile.

Lewis compares the Christian religion to reality. Both are slightly odd. They are not what you expect. The fact that Christianity, like reality, in being something that is not what you would've guessed, is one of the reasons he believes Christianity is true.

On goodness Lewis writes, "Good, as it ripens, becomes continually ore different not only from evil but from other good" (Lewis, The Great Divorce)

Lewis notes that there is a qualitative difference between Christians and those who are trying to be good people. "That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or - if they thing there is not - at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it" (Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Myths that mirror the Christ story are good dreams sent by God

A couple of days ago I wrote about a post I titled as Myths as a basis for believing in Christ as a note about my (sightly behind schedule) daily readings in A Year With C.S. Lewis. January 22nd's post (I know, I'm more that slightly behind schedule) follows up on this. I'm not sure when I first came to think that Christianity was foreshadowed by earlier myths or even partially understand as a part of our human nature, but it might have been with C.S. Lewis. It also might have been in college when I became interested in exactly what the Imago Dei meant to us. I think that I believe that being made in the image of God, we have an innate understanding of who God is. While this innate idea is neither perfect nor complete, it allows us to have, at least at a subconscious level, a deep understanding of even some of the finer points of Christian theology. While Lewis doesn't necessarily point to the whole being made in the image of God as a reason, I don't think he would disagree either. He talks more about what God has done, rather than what we can glean from being made in the image of God. In this post he writes:

"And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity).

Myths as a basis for believing in Christ

One of the things that many detractors from Christianity love to throw out there is the similarity between things from the Scriptures and other ancient religions that may have been older than what happened in the Scriptures. Recently, I've seen lots of posts about Horus or Osiris and how their stories both predates Christ's and are very similar. I've always wondered wether this is a valid criticism of Christianity, maybe they are correct in assuming that Christianity has just borrowed concepts from older religions. But, being a believer, I've always thought that there had to be another explanation.

I've wondered if the reason as to why many of the Biblical stories mirror other myths is that God has used those myths as a way of preparing the way for all peoples to have some sort of base so that they can more easily accept the truth of God. Lewis seems to think something similar as he notes in Is Theology Poetry?  

He notes that theology offers special revelation, but also a general one too. "We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story - the theme of incarnation, death and rebirth. And the differences between the Pagan Christs (Balder, Osiris, etc.) and the Christ Himself is much what we should expect to find. The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when" (Lewis from Is Theology of Poetry?). Lewis points out that comparing the myths to Christianity is "like watching something come gradually into focus; first it hangs in the clouds of myth and ritual, vast and vague, then it condenses, grows hard and in a sense small, as a historical event in first century Palestine".

When Christ came down to earth he partly emptied himself of his glory. Lewis points out that all things come down from heaven to earth (general revelation) and in doing so they too have been emptied partially of some of their glory. That is why myths are partially correct. In and of themselves, the myths can't lead to salvation; but they can provide the basis for coming to understand the truth that leads to salvation.

I'd love to explore this topic further.

God and the Atlantic Ocean

Lewis describes how after giving a speech to the Royal Air Force an old officer exclaimed that he had no time for creeds of Christianity because they were meaningless. He believed in God and had in fact experienced him in his own life. But, the creeds and theology of Christianity felt less real than that type of experience.

Lewis compared this to seeing the Atlantic ocean in real life and seeing it on a map. Of course seeing it in real life was a more tangible experience, but the map is made from thousands of persons' experience with the Atlantic Ocean. You, as a single person, can experience the Atlantic Ocean in a one-on-one level as much as you like. But, to sail across it one will need maps. It's the same thing with Scripture and theology. You can experience God at a one-on-one level, but without a map you're going to have a lot of walks on the beach, but your not going to make it across the Atlantic.

Interestingly, he notes that the experiences we have with God at that one-on-one level are certainly exciting, but like the old officer, often nothing comes of it. "It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it... It is all thrills and no work" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity). But, when using the maps (theology and Scripture) requires work to get to God. It's relying on hundreds of people's experience with God, mapping out a way to get to God on a deeper level.

God is always in the Now

God does not experience time like man does. There is no yesterday or tomorrow for God. For God, everything happens Now. This removes the problem of God's foreknowledge and man's free will. We are free to act without God knowing what we are doing tomorrow because God is seeing our actions of tomorrow as we do them. But God sees our actions of today, yesterday and tomorrow Now. "He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now' for Him" (C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity)

On a separate and infuriating note, I tried to explain this to Erin to no avail. She simply disagreed with me over and over again.

A History of the World in 6 Glasses

A History of the World in 6 Glasses
Tom Standage

This was a really fun little history book that shows the development of human history through six beverages: beer, wine, spirits, coffee, tea and Coca-Cola. For a history book it really keeps the pages turning and would be a good read for just about anyone. It's not so lofty that only history nerds would like and understand it; but, it isn't so simple that those same nerds would turn their nose up at it.

Here are just some of my highlights from the book.

"To Neolithic drinkers, beer's ability to intoxicate and induce a state of altered consciousness seemed magical" (Standage, 19). - The obvious inference here is that beer is a gift from the gods, which played a central role in many ancient peoples' religions.

An interesting Egyptian myth that would be worth further study and possibly a short story:

"The Egyptians, for example, believed that beer was accidentally discovered by Osiris, the god of agriculture and king of the afterlife. One day he prepared a mixture of water and sprouted grain, but forgot about it and left it in the sun. He later returned to find the gruel had fermented, decided to drink it, and was so pleased with the result that he passed his knowledge on to humankind. (This tale seems to tally closely with the way beer was probably discovered in the stone age)." (Standage, 19).

It is better to be a beer drinker than a non-beer drinker.

"In other words, beer helped to make up for the decline in food quality as people took up farming, provided a safe form of liquid nourishment, and gave groups of beer-drinking farmers a comparative advantage over non-beer drinkers" (Standage, 22).

Philosophy of Religion and History of Religion: An interesting theory on how temples emerged to play a role in society:

"Keeping surplus food in the storehouse was one way to ward off future food shortages; ritual and religious activity, in which the gods were called upon to ensure a good harvest, was another. As these two activities became intertwined, deposits of surplus food came to be seen as offerings to the gods, and the storehouses became temples." (Standage, 22).

"The Mouth of a perfectly contented man is filled with beer.
-Egyptian Proverb, c. 2200 BC."(Standage, 23)

The very definition of civilization is beer.

"The Mesopotamians regarded the consumption of bread and beer as one of the things that distinguished them from savages and made them fully human. Interestingly, this belief seems to echo beer's association with a settled, orderly lifestyle, rather than the haphazard existence of hunter-gatherers in prehistoric times" (Standage, 27).

Another Egyptian Myth worth retelling in short story form:

"One Egyptian tale even credits beer with saving humankind from destruction. Ra, the sun god, learned that humankind was plotting against him, and dispatched the goddess Hathor to exact punishment. But such was her ferocity that Ra feared there would soon be nobody left to worship him, and he took pity on humankind. He prepared a vast amount of beer - seven thousand jars of it, in some versions of the story - dyed it red to resemble blood, and spread it over the fields, where it shone like a vast mirror. Hathor paused to admire her reflection and then stooped to drink some of the mixture. She became intoxicated, fell asleep, and forgot about her bloody mission. Humankind was saved, and Hathor became the goddess of beer and brewing. Versions of this story have been found inscribed of Egyptian kings, including Tutankhamen, Seti I, and Ramses the Great" (Standage, 28-29).

"Quickly, bring me a beaker of wine, so that I may wet my mind and say something clever"
-Aristophanes, Greek comic poet (c. 450-385 BCE)." (Standage, 43).

Plato's wine experiment and "fear drink" to test someone's character:

"Wine could be used in everyday life to reveal truth: It could expose the true nature of those drinking it. While he objected to the hedonistic reality of actual symposia, Plato saw no reason why the practice could not, in theory, be put to good use as a test of personality. Speaking through one of the characters in his book Laws, Plato argues that drinking with someone at a symposium is in fact the simplest, fastest, and most reliable test of someone's character" (Standage, 63-64).

"Baths, wine and sex ruin our bodies. But what makes life worth living except baths, wine and sex?
-Corpus Inscriptions VI, 15258" (Standage, 69).

Another short story that would be worth writing - This might be good as a story of disembodied heads relating their final moments on earth at a party in the afterlife:

"It is not often that choosing one wine over another is a matter of life or death. Yet that is what determined the fate of Marcus Antonius, a Roman politician and a renowned orator. In 87 BCE, he found himself on the wrong side of one of Rome's many interminable power struggles. Gains Marius, an elderly general, had seized power and was ruthlessly hunting down supporters of his rival, Sulla. Marcus Antonius sought refuge in the house of an associate of far lower social status, hoping that nobody would think of looking for him in such a poor man's house. His host, however, unwittingly gave him away by sending his servant out to buy wine worthy of such a distinguished guest. The servant went to the neighborhood wine shop and, after tasting what was on offer, asked for a far better and more expensive wine than usual. When the vintner asked why, the servant revealed the identity of his master's guest. The vintner went straight to Marius, who dispatched a handful of soldiers to kill Marcus Antonius. Yet having burst into his room, the soldiers could not bring themselves to kill him, such was the power of his oratory. Eventually, their commanding officer, who was waiting outside, went in to see what was happening. Denouncing his men as cowards, he drew his sword and beheaded Marcus Antonius himself" (Standage, 75).

A funny account of early English settlers to the New World:

"In 1613 a Spanish observer reported that the three hundred colonists had nothing but water to drink, 'which is contrary to the nature of the English - on account of which they all wish to return and would have done so if they had been at liberty'" (Standage, 113-114).

The Early American Drink:

Rum starts out as the colonial and American drink, but it is supplanted by whiskey with even George Washington getting in on the game. Jefferson however laments this as both a statesman, and a wine aficionado - calling wine, the only antidote to the bane of whiskey. "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap, and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage" (Standage, 127).

A fascinating account of the origin of coffee

"One tells of an Ethiopian goatherd who noticed that is flock became particularly frisky after consuming the brownish purple cherries from a particular tree. He then tried eating them himself, noted their stimulating powers, and passed his discovery on to a local imam. The imam, in turn, devised a new way to prepare the berries, drying them and then boiling them in water to produce a hot drink, which he used to keep himself awake during overnight religious ceremonies. Another story tells of a man named Omar who was condemned to die of starvation in the desert outside Mocha, a city in Yemen, on the southwestern corner of the Arabian peninsula. A vision guided him to a coffee tree, whereupon he ate some of its berries. This gave him sufficient strength to return to Mocha, where his survival was taken as a sign that God had spared him in order to pass along to humankind knowledge of coffee, which then became a popular drink in Mocha" (Standage, 137).

Might be a funny short story:

Not everyone in the arabic world was thrilled with discovery of coffee. "Religious leaders invoked this rule in Mecca in June 1511, the earliest known of several attempts to ban the consumption of coffee. The local governor, a man named Kha'ir Beg, who was responsible for maintaining public morality, literally put coffee on trial. He convened a council of legal experts and placed the accused - a large vessel of coffee - before them. After discussion of its intoxicating effects, the council agreed with Kha'ir Beg that the sale and consumption of coffee should be prohibited... Within a few months, however, higher authorities in Cairo overturned Kha'ir Beg's ruling, and coffee was soon being openly consumed again. His authority undermined, Kha'ir Beg was replaced as governor the following year" (Standage, 138).

Another funny short story surrounding coffee, might be one reported in the Spectator (London paper) in 1712. 

"There was a fellow in town some years ago, who used to divert himself by telling a lye at Charing Cross in the morning at eight of the clock, and then following it through all parts of town until eight at night: at which time he came to a club of his friends, and diverted them with an account of what censure it had drawn at Will's in Covent Garden, how dangerous it was believed at Child's and what inference they drew from it with relation to stocks at Jonathon's" (Standage, 154).

This was a well-written and well-researched book that I thoroughly enjoyed.