Thursday, August 04, 2011

everythingisaremix is a rehash

A friend of mine pointed me recently to http://www.everythingisaremix.info/. I watched parts one and two, and I thought they were interesting but underwhelming relative to the thesis.

For example, doesn't every movie buff know that Lucas lifted this shot from Triumph of the Will?
It's quite well-known that Lucas was intentionally hearkening back to the serials of yesteryear, so the Flash Gordon tie-ins, while not something I already knew directly, were hardly surprising.

The "Language of Christianity" piece was even less impressive, because (for me) there wasn't any new trivia to discover. It was also disappointing to discover that a primary achievement of this video is simply to rehash some old confusion again. Take this screenshot, for example:

Well, as Kirby has already said in this video, "salvation" is a word with many meanings. The authors of the scriptures knew that, the Hebrews knew that, the Jews in Jesus' time knew that, Jesus knew that, Paul knew that, Augustine knew that... Now we skip a couple millennia and realize that Kirby's just figuring it out.

Furthermore, since this screenshot shows his attempt to clarify 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, it's obvious that he still doesn't understand the different meanings very well. Those verses are clearly about death and resurrection. (See verse 13 if you're not sure.) Kirby's argument seems to be: (1) The Bible refers to "salvation" in some places in the sense of making things better in this life. (2) 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to be referring to "salvation" somehow (even though the word isn't mentioned at all in , e.g., the NIV, which I happened to check first at biblegateway.com). Therefore, the concept of the "rapture" as it is drawn from 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is merely based on confusion about what "salvation" means. There are some problems with that argument as Kirby makes it.

Kirby is one more in a long line of folks who are confused about the Gospel of Christ. It includes both justification (by which Christians are made right with God) and sanctification, the process in which Christians strive to do good as the Holy Spirit refines them in the image of Christ. Justification and sanctification are not the same thing. Kirby's right: words can be tricky. I wish he had done a bit more research on the ones he attempted to expound.

I don't mean to knock what Kirby Ferguson is doing too much -- it's interesting storytelling with some surprising trivia for those of us who aren't experts in each of the areas he covers. It looks like Parts 3 and 4 get into the nature of creativity -- and that sounds more interesting, and more promising.

Lastly, I want to mention that Kirby doesn't really seem to be claiming that everything is a "remix". You "remix" recorded stuff: footage, sounds, etc. He talks about that once in a while, but he's really focused on ideas. I think his real thesis is that everything is a "rehash" of old ideas -- and both Solomon and I agree with Kirby about that:

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9

Perhaps ironically, the fact that everythingisaremix is itself a rehash of a very old observation only goes to prove its point.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

The Twits

Today Joel Spolsky (Joel on Software) wrote the following, with which I heartily agree:
Although I appreciate that many people find Twitter to be valuable, I find it a truly awful way to exchange thoughts and ideas. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/03/14.html


I just can't get myself the least bit interested in Twitter, but I can't help being interested in why other people are interested and I'm not.

Maybe the thing I don't like about Twitter is how empty it feels to me to "shout [sound bytes] into the abyss", as Joel puts it. I related this to a friend (in IRC, which is arguably not that far away from Twitter on a certain continuum) and he replied that "it's not the abyss. It's your follower's inboxes." Fair enough. But what percentage of Twits have followers, and why would I ever want to follow a Twit?

There's a certain type of fascination many people seem to have with being broadly up-to-date on lots of topics. Many of these people probably use readers (such as Google Reader) to keep up with the RSS feeds they've subscribed to and filtered. I tried using Google Reader briefly, until I realized rather quickly that I just don't care about using the Internet that way.

I also have trouble caring about the "status" of the hundreds of people I know (sorry, Facebook). I like reading longer, more thoughtful updates on people's lives, but I don't care what you had for breakfast today (sorry, Sarah). I log into Facebook every once in a while just because there are occasionally new connections made with old friends, and it's as good a way as any to keep some sort of link so we can contact each other if we want to. Once I'm in there, I often end up reading just a bit on somebody's wall, or looking at somebody's photos, or something. But "keeping up" is just not something I worry about at all, and my Facebook apathy seems to well up from the same spring as my Twitter apathy.

Maybe, someday, I'll catch the wave and become a Twit myself. But in the meantime, I plan to keep puzzling out why the Twits care so much while I don't give a hoot.

Edit: On an ironically related note, see http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/03/14/.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

4-Handed Pits Rules (card game)

Today I played a fun, four-handed version of Pits. Here's what we changed relative to the only written rules I know about.

  1. drop all spades and the deuce of clubs (so only 40 cards remain, four of which are wild)

  2. Scoring:

    1. 1st place wins 3 points, gives least desired card (face up) to 4th place in next hand

    2. 2nd place wins 2 points

    3. 3rd place wins 0 points, but gets to deal and lead the next hand

    4. 4th place wins 1 point, gives highest single card (face up) to 1st place in next hand



  3. play to 26 points

  4. we played with equal jokers (because otherwise it feels like you should also order the deuces)



The advantage given to the 1st-place finisher by taking the highest card from the 4th-place finisher in the next hand isn't as pattern-forming as I expected. Three of the four of us finished 1st several times, and the 4th person got 2nd once.

(Thanks to Tim Hunt for introducing me to 6-handed Pits.)

Saturday, January 02, 2010

The End Of Faith: Preliminarily, meh.

I'm reading Sam Harris' The End Of Faith because a friend recommended it to me as a moving book. I'm only 23 pages into the book, and I have dwindling hopes for any real argumentation to follow that may substantiate any aspects of the so-far endless string of assertions. Here's an easily isolateable assertion that makes me fear the book will have no real argument:

The only reason anyone is "moderate" in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought (democratic politics, scientific advancement on every front, concern for human rights, an end to cultural and geographic isolation, etc.). The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside. The moderation we see among nonfundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt. (Harris, Sam. The End Of Faith. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. New York, NY. 2004. p. 18-19.) [emphasis original]

This statement would be embarrassing to its author, were he familiar with the last 2500 (or so) years of human thought about Judeo-Christian scripture. Augustine was interpreting Christian scripture non-literally in the fourth and fifth centuries (a 10-second google search finds reference to this in Augustine through the ages: an encyclopedia. (Fitzgerald, Allan and Cavadini, John C. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1999. p. 367.)) But even before Augustine, scripture is seen to take itself non-literally (in at least some sense -- though what it means to take something "literally" is not always very obvious). For examples, we need look no further than the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

  1. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

  2. God promises to make Isaac's descendants as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 26:4


If Genesis 5:5 doesn't take Genesis 3:6 literally (in at least a certain sense), then Harris' assertion is almost as groundless as it could possibly be. Judeo-Christian scripture has never been taken entirely literally, so it can hardly be the case that modernism has at last come to our rescue and knocked some sense into all those otherwise exclusively literalist believers.


I will cheerfully add an assertion here that Harris and the Skeptic's Annotated Bible are both making the mistake of criticizing without any apparent regard whatsoever to how Hebrews and Christians (at least) have historically viewed scripture. It is not difficult to conclude that an opponent's view is ludicrous if you apply all of your own presuppositions to it while ignoring those of your opponent. In fact, I'm inclined to think that creationists of the 6-24-hour-day camp far too often take such an approach with regard to science.


Instead of ignorantly railing against the beliefs of others, we should all strive to understand one another and carry on respectful discussions. This goal became easier for me when I read Harris' acknowledgments at the end of The End Of Faith. "I began writing this book on September 12, 2001..." (p.323) I can empathize with Harris -- this book is clearly a cathartic work for him, and I can respect that even while I see that his seemingly-extensive research unfortunately did not apparently include anything to bring him understanding of or respect for his opponents.


But, as I mentioned, I'm only on page 23. Maybe he'll surprise me with thoughtfulness somewhere in the remaining 204 pages -- I hope he does.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Avatar: Meh

Films don't often inspire me to write, but Avatar is an exception. As a visual experience it is fantastic, stunning, vibrant, inventive. Unfortunately, there wasn't anything else particularly interesting about it.


The premise -- obvious from the trailers -- is that there's some military-ish group of humans on some extra-terrestrial world, and they have some way of taking on bodies that match the indigenous people. Now that you know the premise, you're all set. Imagine the story you would expect to be told based on that premise, and imagine the characters you would expect to meet. Imagine the character arcs intersecting with all the main plot lines at all the major plot points. Yep, that's the movie. And the experience of your expectations being precisely met doesn't end with this exercise -- it continues in much greater detail through the entire film.


Titanic didn't tell a daring story, either. That's probably why I only saw it once. I'll want to see Avatar again in the theater, definitely in 3-D (again). But after that, I don't expect to maintain any lasting interest in the film. This is obviously a case of high expectations being dashed -- if only I hadn't expected a daring film, I might be going to sleep right now thinking about how gorgeous it was. But I had hoped for more than a retread of the stereotypes, clichés, and Messages ("war is bad (but using LOTS OF GUNS to illustrate this is entertaining)" and "yay for the environment!") that I've gotten from Cameron before.


Avatar's timid story has really distracted me from how great it looks, and that's a shame. It's just worth seeing, just for the seeing.

Monday, November 09, 2009

Wishing for Truth in Politics

On the way home from work today, I heard an NPR story about the Stupak Amendment to the health reform bill that just passed by a narrow margin in the House.

NPR read the text of the Stupak Amendment after "translating it into plain English" in order to clear up apparent confusion about what the amendement actually does. Bart Stupak claims that it merely applies the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits using certain Federal monies to pay for abortions, to the new health reform bill.

When I arrived at home, one of the emails that greeted me was a statement by president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) Terry O'Neill. It contains a few short paragraphs, but the meat of the email says that "The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

  • Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

  • Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

  • Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases."



I suppose NOW is very concerned about getting attention, and, unfortunately, not very concerned about telling the truth in this case. The actual text of the Stupak Amendment (IANAL) directly contradicts the first two points, which are the meaty ones (casting aside the unintentional meaning of "100 percent of their own money"). Here's what the bill says:

Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under the section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as--


...and then there are some stipulations. But the stipulations appear merely to pedantically establish that this document is consistent with itself. The freedoms granted for individuals and States to purchase abortion coverage simply cannot be exercised with Federal money, which is the whole point (IANAL) of the amendment in the first place.

I really felt like I should be able to respond to the email's senders and point out the obvious untruth of the claims being made, but I know there would have been no beneficial result. At least now this is off my chest.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Skim Once and Move Along

In tangential response to Is Google making us stupid?:

I used to be able to romanticize the past like nobody's business. These days I can't even get a good reminiscence going. *sigh*

Friday, January 02, 2009

One of the coolest moments ever. Sort of.

Mark your calendars, because Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 UTC 2009 is on its way. Run
date +%s -d 'Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 UTC 2009'
if you want to know why that's interesting. (Ah! Or you can google it instead if you like.)

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Worrying About Scared People

Obama isn't scary, but I worry about the people who are scared by him. A friend just pointed out these two articles to me, and I think they shed helpful light on the misguided political path of Evangelicalism in recent years.


And while I'm on the topic, Obama's Call to Renewal Keynote Address from June 28, 2006, is, in my opinion, one of the best speeches I've heard[1] a politician give on the topic of faith and religion. Those looking carefully might notice that he doesn't state a position on Biblical inerrancy, and he doesn't acknowledge that slavery as described by Leviticus was not identical with chattel slavery as it was practiced in the United States. But those are hardly reasons, in themselves, to reject his claim to be a Christian. His gentle reprimand toward those who "cynically use religion to justify partisan ends" is such a welcome breath of fresh air, especially coming from the lips of the man who is now on his way to the White House.[2]

I think Evangelicals would do well to heed the words of Barack Obama, and not just the words of people who would use scripture or religious authority to incite fear of him.

[1] See a video of the speech here.
[2] In ironic contrast, after you read Obama's speech you might want to note some of the Michael Moore-style (i.e., unfair and unreasonable) mish-mashes of the above speech readily available on youtube, such as the one entitled "Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible--No Christian Would Do This".

Friday, October 24, 2008

Some Logic about 6-Day-24-Hour Creationism

[Note: I was really writing about stereotypes and mistakes in doctrinal priority, so I was not very careful to distinguish among various theories of creation. In general, I am critical here of 6-day-24-hour, young earth creationism. --Matt (Sat Oct 25 20:33:40 EDT 2008)]

One day (many years ago), I realized that one of the following must be true:

  1. Scientists are in a massive anti-religious conspiracy,

  2. scientists are so biased against creationism that they're ignoring vast amounts of creation-confirming data or faking vast amounts of evolution-confirming data,

  3. Christians are in a massive pro-creation conspiracy,

  4. or Christians are so biased against evolutionary theory that they're ignoring vast amounts of anti-creation data or faking vast amounts of creation-confirming data.


I could easily imagine #4 being true, and within the health-and-wealth section of American Christianism I suspect massive insincerity, so that there is a conspiracy is easy to believe.

Think about the Christians you know (if any), and then think about the scientists you know (if any). Are you clearly in one group or the other? If so, think about the stereotypes you have of the other group. I'll tell you about the stereotypes I have; they are based both on personal interaction and reading works authored by representatives of these groups.

I think every scientist is biased about her science[1], but I think the scientific community recognizes this problem and continues to worry about it and debate ways of dealing with it...just as Christians worry about their interpretations of scripture and continue to debate how to do it properly.

I think every Christian is biased, usually toward what she has been taught. I think a lot of Christians have been taught a particular biblical hermeneutic that posits, as a cornerstone of Christianity, no less, a particular "literal" understanding of Genesis 1-2. I think the majority of these Christians are ignorant about not only the contested nature of biblical hermeneutics within the history of their own faith[2], but also about actual scientific history and practice. I also think the majority of these Christians don't know any practicing scientists (and are therefore willing to believe #1 or #2, above).[3]

I don't think many scientists are in conspiracies, and I don't think scientists' inescapable bias is covering up vast amounts of pro-creation data. I think many Christians ignorantly believe simplistic pro-creation assertions that are not borne out by actual science. Furthermore, I think Christ's command to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" (Luke 10:27) implies that we need to be intellectually honest, and many 6-day-24-hour literalist creationists are unintentionally breaking that commandment.

When general revelation (creation (the universe), see Romans 1) tells us that, according to our best theories, the Earth is billions of years old, we need to accept that as being probably true.

When I was a child, I was taught that "if you deny 6-day-24-hour creation you might as well throw out the whole Bible!". Then, when I looked into the issue by taking scientists seriously instead of merely reading creationist assertions against them, and in following Christ's command to be intellectually honest, I had to deny 6-day-24-hour creationism...and my faith in scripture was fundamentally shaken because that particular interpretation of those particular passages had been improperly wedged into the foundation of my Christianity. That was 10 years ago, and I'm still struggling with the consequences that unwise teaching had for my faith.

As the book of Job famously illustrates, it's OK to struggle with our faith (or lack thereof), and I think doubt can be quite healthy. But raising particular views about creation to equal importance with the Gospel of Christ is foolish. Beyond that, at this point in history, in my opinion, it violates Christ's command to love the Lord with "all your mind". When a particular interpretation (science) of general revelation (the universe) contradicts a particular interpretation (hermeneutic) of special revelation (scripture), we should be wrestling with that. I see ignorance and wishful thinking in many 6-day-24-hour arguments, and sincerity and a high probability of truth in science's differing conclusions.

One time I had a conversation with a classmate of mine who had some stereotypes about Christians; she seemed to assume that Christians were never serious about science, and always willing to believe whatever would confirm their faith. She seemed surprised to discover that Copernicus was a devout Roman Catholic, and [perhaps less so] that I, too, was a Christian who took science seriously. Christians and scientists alike would do well to foster a healthy respect for each other; we're all bringing personal bias to the problem of interpreting something. Both Christians and scientists have a duty to interpret the universe correctly, and if we're looking for common ground upon which to base a productive discussion of differing views, we couldn't ask for more than all the "ground" that exists.

[1] In his masterful book The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Pierre Duhem discusses the difficulty of avoiding bias. (Duhem, Pierre. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by Weiner, Philip P. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1982. See page 182.) Duhem is responding to Claude Bernard's work in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. (Bernard, Claude. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Translated by Henry Copley Greene. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. 1957. See pages 40-43 for Bernard's discussion of respect for authority within the scientific community.)
[2] For one of the most ancient examples, and to show that old-earth views were not newly invented in the 19th century to accommodate Darwinian theory, consider St. Augustine's commentaries on Genesis. Howard J. Van Till's post at http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199804/0345.html might be a good starting point.
[3] Of course, there are very educated, informed Christians who believe in a 6-day-24-hour creation event; I know at least one. I have not found them to be the norm.

[Note: Retitled from "Some Logic about Creationism and Evolutionary Theory".]

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Mis-heard

In case anybody else is wondering, "Through constant pained disgrace" != "Through constipated grace".

http://www.lyrics007.com/Metallica Lyrics/Unforgiven Lyrics.html

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Enjoyable quotes from Claude Bernard

These both come from his book "An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine", and the context is quite unnecessary to appreciate them.

  • "...small eels in mildewed wheat..." (p. 119)

  • "...place a small animal under an air pump..." (p. 120)

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Missing Altruistism Gene

Nobody is suggesting that children deliberately and consciously deceive their parents because of the selfish genes within them. And I must repeat that when I say something like 'A child should lose no opportunity of cheating...lying, deceiving, exploiting...', I am using the word 'should' in a special way. I am not advocating this kind of behaviour as moral or desirable. I am simply saying that natural selection will tend to favour children who do act in this way, and that therefore when we look at wild populations we may expect to see cheating and selfishness within families. The phrase 'the child should cheat' means that genes that tend to make children cheat have an advantage in the gene pool. If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature. [emphasis original]


That's on page 139 of my copy of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, and the irony is thick. One of the primary purposes of the book is to make some headway on the naturalist's problem of explaining altruistic behavior, and at the halfway point we find this frank admission that the most intriguing part of the project cannot be completed. If naturalism cannot explain human altruism by appeal to our biological nature, then what else is there? We can't escape by claiming it is a social phenomenon, or if we do, we must admit that some propensity toward altruism has been injected into our social nature from somewhere other than our biological makeup. Either biology completely explains who we are, or it does not. If it does not, then naturalism finds itself in a philosophical pickle.

It's difficult to see how a naturalist can ever fully back up the claim that we "must" (or "should", or "ought to") teach our children anything about morality, since that's exactly the issue at question for the naturalist. To put it bluntly: If we need to teach our children altruism because it is biologically unnatural for them, then it is also biologically unnatural for us, so what is the explanation for our conviction that we ought to be teaching it at all?

I have not yet read beyond the chapter-ending quote above, so perhaps Dawkins makes more headway than he seems to admit here. But if not, then not even Dawkins thinks he's made any real dent in a theist's argument that human morality is not satisfactorily explicable within the framework of naturalism. In fact, a theist might be very much in favor of the idea that the human propensity toward altruism has been injected into our social nature from somewhere non-biological.

[Mon Sep 22 10:22:55 EDT 2008 Edit: I accidentally misspelled "altruism" in the title. The error was pointed out to me and I fixed it...and then realized that "altruistism" is not only amusing (to me, anyhow), but actually kinda gets at a helpful idea. So I'm replacing the misspelled word.]

Monday, September 08, 2008

If friends were...

Seen in various and sundry places: "If friends were flowers, I'd pick you."

If friends were roses, I'd cut you.
If friends were whiteboards, I'd erase you.
If friends were baggies, I'd pop you.
If friends were markers, I'd cap you.
If friends were ice cream, I'd freeze you.
If friends were geese, I'd cook you.
If friends were deer, I'd hunt you.
If friends were photos, I'd frame you.
If friends were packages, I'd post you.
If friends were doors, I'd shut you.
If friends were matches, I'd burn you.
If friends were fences, I'd paint you.
If friends were seeds, I'd plant you.
If friends were rifles, I'd shoot you.
If friends were clothes, I'd launder you.
If friends were pianos, I'd play you.
If friends were cars, I'd wax you.
If friends were shoes, I'd wear you.
If friends were footballs, I'd kick you.
If friends were cabbages, I'd boil you.
If friends were potatoes, I'd peel you.
If friends were pizzas, I'd slice you.
If friends were onions, I'd chop you.
If friends were marshmallows, I'd toast you.
If friends were burgers, I'd grill you.
If friends were video games, I'd beat you.
If friends were nails, I'd pound you.
If friends were laundry, I'd wring you.
If friends were glasses, I'd empty you.
If friends were cans, I'd recycle you.
If friends were pistols, I'd fire you.
If friends were food, I'd eat you.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The Shakiest Gun Shot Liberty Valance (and missed)

A couple of weeks ago I was suddenly struck by some memories of a movie I watched repeatedly as a kid: The Shakiest Gun in the West. I remembered the line "...a...seven-shooter?" and realized that entire scene was a comedic riff on a much better film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Just now I happened to read the plot synposis of Shakiest Gun, and even the basic premise (educated/effeminate wimp sets out to civilize the west) is borrowed from Liberty Valance. It's probably been at least 14 years sine I watched Shakiest Gun...maybe I'll keep it that way. My fond memories of Don Knotts might be safest left alone.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

My Canterbury Tale

I wrote the following when I was a senior in high school. Our assignment was to draw a character from a hat (I drew "Methodist minister") and add that character and his/her story to Canterbury Tales. So my classmates and I wrote introductions and then stories from our characters' perspectives.

I did have a couple semi-conscious inspirations for the story; one came from Twain and the other from Chaucer (of course). In the years since I wrote this story I've also encountered Robert Burns' "To a Louse", which may seem a likely inspiration though it wasn't. (I highly recommend reading it.)

Please forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes, the repetitive vocabulary, the stereotypes a teenager in Nebraska in 1997 had about people in Alabama in 1895, and the assertion that hard work and loving families don't promote good learning and common sense.

-- Matt Oquist, June 12, 2005 (updated October 25, 2007, and May 11, 2008)


Original text
Methinks, my brethren, that I have a tale so spun that all the Boy Scouts in America could not unravel its plot. I shall place the populace of my anecdote in Wefarthere, Alabama, in approximately 1895.

Now in Wefarthere there lived a young lady whom was called Dottie. Dottie Smythe was one of the simple folk who inhabited the region. Among her peers were the children of blacksmiths, mill workers, and farmers alike, all working their bones raw to provide for their families. They were a rather close lot, as people of this sort tend to be. Neither hard work nor a loving family promote good learning and common sense, however, and Dottie was lacking in both.

Now Dottie was a girl at the tender age of 14. She was at that point at which a girl is transformed into a woman by the ver-present and watchful mother, who offers advice and gives counsel for whatever situation may develop.

It came to pass that, one Sunday as they sat in church, Dottie's stomach began to growl. Now Dottie, although simple minded, was not ignorant to the workings of the gastrointestinal mechanisms. She knew if a stomach goes "rrrwwwwulg," it means "I'm hungry, feed me." She knew "ppbbtp-p-p-pt" with a slight tingling at the bottom of the throat meant gas was on its way up. She also knew that a "ppbbtp-p-p-pt" with any sensation at all at the other end of the system meant gas was moving towards that end.

Now Dottie was used to her mother's watchful eye, and she knew the listening ear was present as well. She glanced at her mother. With relief, she noted that as of yet, Mrs. Smythe had not noticed the digestive disturbance. Dottie concentrated on sitting up straight, with her back to the back of the chair, leaving her midsection relaxed and in the least stressful position possible. For a time, this worked. Soon, though, the noises started up again, and this time Dottie could feel the muscles contorting and working themselves into strange positions.

She quit concentrating on her stomach altogether, and tried listening to the sermon, in hopes that the lack of attention would make her tummy settle down.

It was a right lively sermon, with the pastor jumping up and down, and running to and fro in front of the congregation, holding his arms in the air and gesticulating wildly. "hallelujas" were ringing out from all quarters of the congregation, and the preacher himself added one here and there. Presently, however, Dottie's stomach simply intensified its efforts to be heard and attended to. Dottie's mother had now noticed these gurgles, and was giving Dottie looks of reproval.

Now Dottie knew it was unladylike to let one's stomach rumble, so she tried hard to stop it, but Lord, no, it could not be quelled, try as she might. Needless to say, it was driving Dottie batty.

Now Dottie began to get more uneasy. Without a doubt, the gurgle was signaling a gaseous substance, and she had begun to sense the most queer ticklish feeling in her lower abdomen.

She was not slow to realize what the situation was. Determined that never should gas pass from her in church, she wedged her rear end into that pew, crossed her legs, and tensed her muscles, resolute in her determination.

She concentrated on the pew in front of her. It was a strong, sturdy pine, stained dark brown as all the others. The grain stood out sharply, following the contours of the pew as if the contours had been there first.

She noticed an old lady two pews up. Her white hair was curled and relatively short, as most older womens' is. A fly had nestled itself in it, and the older lady seemed not to notice.

Gurgle. There went her stomach again. She gave a quick, sideways glance toward her mother. Mrs. Smythe must have been listening for some time, judging by the look on her face. The corners of her mouth were pulled down so far she thought they would be pulled off her face, and there was fire in her eyes. Dottie's heart skipped a beat. She would have some explaining to do later, after church.

Quickly she turned her attention back to the fly. It was now buzzing around in the woman's hair, seemingly in circles. Dottie stifled a laugh, and thought "That old lady should get that fly out of her hair before the situation becomes even more embarrassing."

Suddenly, without warning, that's what the old woman did. She reached up and gave herself a tremendous "THWACK" on the back of the head.

The fly was now dazed, and it managed to find its way out of the hair maze and begin flying in confused, lopsided circles in the air.

Dottie's stomach chose that moment to let go with a tremendous groan and her mother's whispered "Dottie!" made Dottie squirm.

The fly did another circle, the preacher another "Hallelujah!", and Dottie's stomach again made a loud, offensive noise. This time her mother's "Dottie!!" was not so quiet. After a hurried glance of acknowledgment to her mother, Dottie began to panic. She could feel a lot more activity going on in her midsection now than before. What if she could contain herself no longer?

Now pressure is an interesting thing. Released a little at a time, such as when one blows through a straw, it is hardly noticeable, just a soft "Phooooooh." Released all at once, such as when a balloon pops, it can be very noisy.

Well, Dottie had been allowing pressure to build up in her digestive system for so long, that it came to the point where all her muscular control was no match for the raw power of nature. All the pent-up gas was released in a belch from the bottom so forceful that the hymnals rattled five pews over.

Before the entire congregation could even turn to locate the source of the rude noise, Dottie's mother stood up, her face bright red. Dottie recognized the signs and mentally prepared herself for a very humiliating public tongue-lashing. Her mother's nostrils were flared, and her mouth was wide open. She sucked in a huge breath with which to initiate a verbal tirade.

At that moment, the unfortunate fly happened to be flying directly under her mother's nose. It was sucked in with the large intake of air, directly through the right nostril and into her windpipe.

This was not a good thing to happen to Dottie's mother, who immediately began coughing and clawing her throat, trying to rid herself of this annoying tickling thing. Dottie's father was, of course, deeply concerned, and, with the curious congregation watching the whole spectacle, tried to ask her what was the matter. She, attempting to look proper and dignified, with her purple face, bulging eyes, and hair rapidly coming undone, couldn't tell him.

So it ended that the Smythes went to find the doctor, who was a Lutheran.

The three elderly women in the back pew immediately leaned in toward each other to discuss the situation.

"Dreadful." said the first.

"Shocking!" said the second.

"Indeed," said the third. "Mrs. Smythe should know better than to pass gas in church by now."

Thursday, May 08, 2008

I'm a Metallica fan.

I considered my fanhood official when (after deliberation) I purchased a Master of Puppets t-shirt this year.

Having grown up in the wastelands of CCM, I've been playing cultural catch-up since sometime toward the end of high school (mid-nineties). I now own and listen to every Metallica studio album, as well as Garage Inc. and S&M. My experience over time has followed this pattern:

  1. I hear a Metallica song I don't know, and I enjoy the sound.

  2. As I listen to the song repeatedly, at some point I catch a bit of the lyric that interests me.

  3. I look up the lyric and realize that James Hetfield is actually singing seriously and with depth about a weighty topic that interests me.



The first occurrence of this was when I borrowed Ride the Lightning from a friend at work in 2001. I got to the song Creeping Death and realized that it's about the 10th plague of the Exodous -- hardly the sort of thing I was expecting from one of the four defininitive 80s thrash-metal bands.

Fast forward three years, and I hear S&M being played at a friend's house. I decide I like the sound (of course - I like film scores and Michael Kamen arranged and conducted!) and purchased a copy for myself. I also purchased their self-titled 1991 album around this time. Sometime during the next year of listening, the lyrics of Through the Never sank into me and I realized how thoroughly this band was considering the same philosophical questions that preoccupy me. (I also recall contrasting that song with Joe Diffie's "Third Rock From the Sun", which I believe is inclined toward a darkly humorous escapism.)

In addition, Holier Than Thou echoes Christ's teaching in Matthew 7, and The God That Failed is about disappointment when God fails to meet our expectations. This was likely written in relation to the death of Hetfield's mother, though I believe the title phrase is a double entendre referring also to Christ's unexpected self-sacrifice.

Conversations with friends left me with low hopes for Load, but I've been very pleased over the past three months to come to appreciate "Bleeding Me", "Thorn Within", and "The Outlaw Torn". Additionally, I could listen all day to Hetfield singing
My body my temple / this temple it tilts
in The House that Jack Built. (Now I want a Load t-shirt, too.)

I'm not settled on this, but I read Bleeding Me as a reflection on the consequences of being part of fallen humanity.

The Outlaw Torn is a beautiful and plaintive prayer -- one I pray regularly, but more quietly, more privately, and with fewer guitars.

Thorn Within demonstrates that Metallica has a better understanding of sin than most culture-shunning American Evangelicals.

As so often happens when I have an idea, it turns out that somebody else has already had that idea and done something significant with it. (For example, Augustine pre-empted me on a theology of God and time.) In this case, it just now occurred to me to search for "Metallica theology" to see what other people have said, and lo and behold! Metallica and Philosophy is available for purchase.

So I decided to write this up now, before I read that book. In any case, I think there's plenty of room for a whole adult Sunday School curriculum built around serious consideration of Metallica's music...but I'm not going to search for "Metallica Sunday School" yet. I need to give my wounded sense of originality a break for now.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

STOP global climate change! Really?

One of the sponsors of NPR (at least in the NH-area) is wecansolveit.org, and their NPR tagline claims they want to "stop global climate change". They don't want to, say, eliminate human influence on the global climate (if there is any that is significant...), they actually just want to stop the whole darn climate from changing, period. Pesky physical processes of the universe, always shifting things around when it's most inconvenient for us. I assume the tagline is simply an unfortunately shallow and hysterical distortion of the actual views and goals of the people at wecansolveit.org. But the fact that this tagline has been playing on the radio -- for weeks at least -- is still an indicator of how carried away it is easy to get about global climate change.


I suspect that we would do better in the long run to focus on a much better understanding of global climate change and plans to mitigate harmful consequences for humanity of such change. And, in the meantime, we should continue to make serious efforts to transition to using renewable energy sources, especially ones that don't contribute to a global food crisis. I hope I'm not the only one who finds it ironic that people who want to "stop global climate change" are sponsoring NPR reports about how biofuel initiatives are contributing to a global food crisis. At least they're sponsoring NPR; I suppose that's one measurably beneficial effect of their organization.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Volition's Crucial Ignorance

Of the papers I've written, this is my current favorite; I think it's always fun when I manage to find an excuse to worry about free will and determinism. In this paper I argue that ignorance is fundamental to volition, whether we like it or not.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

I wrote this paper for a class on Kant. You might find it interesting, or not. Be warned -- reading Kant is like chasing very important and delicious butterflies through a minefield. In this paper I've attempted to collect a few of the butterflies in a small room, so perhaps you will find the morsels closer to hand, and, I hope, just as tasty.