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.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Thursday, March 16, 2017
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...
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.
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.
Monday, March 6, 2017
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 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.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)