My Favorite Context Free Quote of the Week, January 31st, 2019

"Jim 1 is obviously an asshole is a meaningless sentence." 

by
Sam Dresser

1  Please note: "Jim" is the name used by Sam Dresser in his video, "Hope This Helps: Logical Positivism" (highly recommended, by the way). All of the Jims I personally know...including my father, my oldest son, and one of my dear friends, are good guys, so it chafes me a bit to use the name here, but (1) I'm not Sam Dresser's editor and (2) the line was too good to pass up on that count.

More Songs About Logical Positivism & Existentialism

I try to keep in mind that there are lots of people who think that reading is a waste of time and that people who do it are pathetic. I've encountered that attitude more than a few times in my life...even, as I've previously noted, from a group of fellow English teachers. And I understand it to some extent. If you're reading, then you're not doing anything in the world, and we're taught to think that doing things in the world is what matters. 

And I'd have to agree that there is a point at which reading can become a way of not living. If you wake up in the morning, reach for a book, and read until you fall asleep that night (in this scenario, you have a combination toilet / bed and robot servants who bring you food and drink, I suppose), that seems a bit much. Although as soon as those words were out of my fingers, I thought: What if the guy in the toilet bed is trying to find a cure for cancer, and is studying all the relevant literature...and what if he does that for ten years (or twenty years, or whatever) and then jumps out of bed (probably with the help of a robot servant, unless there's been some electrical stimulation of those idle muscles) and screams, "Eureka!" and goes to his lab, mixes some manganese, selenium, St. John's Wort, and Ovaltine into an 8 ounce cup of milk, and hands the glass full of this concoction to his cancer ridden assistant, who downs it, swoons for a moment, and then feels the cancer cells leaping out of his body...and falling to the floor, looking like dead maggots. Well, that wouldn't have been a waste of time, would it? In fact, everyone would applaud that guy (or gal) as one of the greatest heroes in the history of mankind. And there's the rub of it. No matter how much time you spend doing (essentially / apparently) n0thing, if you do something at the end of all that, it justifies The Nothing. It's kind of like that Good Thief on the cross with Jesus. He was (apparently) a nasty bastard for 99.99999% of his life, but at the very end, during his last few minutes, he said something nice to Jesus--he didn't actually even do anything, just said, "Hey, Bad Thief, quit fucking with Jesus!"--and he got to go to Heaven that same day. (Didn't even have to wait for Judgment Day...which is a little bit of inconsistency which still bothers me.) We tend to judge by the outcome rather than the process. Look at poor William Blake. He was a big loser during his lifetime, but after he died lots of people decided he was a genius. So now he's (rightly) revered. Same with Van Gogh. And, to some extent, Philip K. Dick, who spent much of his adult life in abject poverty...before the movies discovered him and made his works into properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars. (For the PKD impaired, check this out: Screamers, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, Minority Report, Total Recall, Total Recall, Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly...not to mention the Amazon series Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams.) 

ANYway. Today I started on Volume 11 of A History of Philosophy by Fr. Frederick Copleston. It's the last volume...and the shortest, weighing in at a mere 230 pages. I will at least stick to my ten pages per day commitment, and since I comfortably kept up with 15 pages per day (or more) on the previous volume, I may even go with that. Which means that I am 15.3 to 23 days away from finishing this big (5,344 pages according to Wikipedia) project up. Copleston spent 30 years (maybe more, since I am dating that statement from the publication of the first volume to the publication of the final volume, and he might have / probably did spend more time writing the first volume than the last) writing these books. (And what about that? Was that a waste of time? I'm sure that some people would say so. I've been directly asked once--and indirectly asked another time 1 --why I am reading it, which would definitely imply that the writing of it falls into the Questionable Use Of Your Time On Earth category for some folks. But I'm pretty excited about it, to tell the truth.)

And after just a few pages I found myself wondering: What the fuck is logical positivism? So I Googled. And I didn't really feel like reading a lot of folderol, so I looked for a video. And I found "I Hope This Helps: Logical Positivism" with Sam Dresser, which I thought was both helpful and entertaining. It included a bit of explanation which ended with what will have to be my next Favorite Context Free Quote of the Week: "Jim is obviously an asshole is a meaningless sentence." I liked Sam Dresser enough to look around at his internetable stuff, and found out that he is a very interesting guy as well. Check out Aeon and Intellectual Takeout if you have the time and an interest in things philosophical. Speaking of which, he makes a passing reference to reading A History of Philosophy...makes no big deal about it at all, and I got the impression that this was something he did at a very young age, so he's up several notches on this one on me...and he made a comment about how it was kind of irritating that Copleston doesn't translate quotations from foreign sources. I am with you, Sam. That Copleston fucker seems to think that everybody either knows Latin and Greek or has easy access to translations. You ever try to Google Greek? Well I have....

So to make a short story even longer, I found out that logical positivism basically just means that if you can't verify it, it ain't true. So definitely not the philosophy for me, but I'm still hot to read this here volume 11. Which is what I shall do right now. Unless I decide to go out to a bar and drink four beers and maybe convince some girl I don't know to come home and have sex with me. Have to admit that that would be a lot more meaningful...but I don't know if I have the energy. I'm no spring chicken, after all.

1  My friendgirl Pat likes to tell her other friends about my activities, and when she told one of them that I was reading A History of Philosophy the friend replied, "Why would he want to do that?" Pat's response was, "It gives us interesting things to talk about when we mall walk." Ha ha. You've got to pass the time somehow, after all. Talking philosophy, talking soap operas, playing word tennis...something.

Radio Free Albemuth (2010)

Although I haven't read all of his books and stories...or even seen all of the movies that have been made based on those books and stories...I thought that I pretty much knew the length and breadth of Philip K. Dick. One of his novels, V.A.L.I.S., is one of my favorite books of all time...and also one of the books which has had the most profound effect upon my mind and spirit. (I don't think it'd be hyperbolic to say that this novel made it possible for me to re-consider Christianity as a valid pathway to spiritual enlightenment. Them notes is heavy.) So I don't know how the movie based on the "alternate" V.A.L.I.S. novel, Radio Free Albemuth (2010), managed to escape my notice for nine years. Add another level of How The Fuck Did I Miss That (HTFDIMT) when you consider that Katheryn Winnick, who caught my eye and libido in Vikings, has a starring role as Rachel Brady. (And I feel it necessary to add in here that Alanis Morissette also has an important role as Sylvia Aramchek, the "Linda Ronstadt" character.)

But just this morning I happened upon it completely by accident. In fact, it was so much by accident that I don't even remember how it happened. I think it just showed up in my Amazon Prime Here's Some Shit Our Algorithm Says You Probably Will Want To Watch list. Which would make sense, as I have purchased several Philip K. Dick items from Amazon in the past, but why did it just show up now, I wonder? I got nuthin' on that.

But I was anxious to watch it, so I dialed it up to keep me company on my 62 minute stationary bike ride today. And with the dumbbell exercises thrown in on top of that, I almost made it all the way through the movie (1 hour 51 minutes), and finished it off shortly thereafter (whilst still gasping for breath; 61.5 ain't easy).

And...well. It's pretty obviously a low budget production. IMDb says its budget was $3.6 million, which isn't technically low budget 1  , but take it from me...there are tacky special effects, some bad acting moments which really should have been re-shot, and some other tell-tale signs. It also obviously didn't do well with anybody, as Wikipedia reveals that its box office take was $9,365. (SIC) But I still found it to be pretty watchable...even enjoyable...and, from what I can remember, pretty true to the novel. I don't think I'll watch it again, but I would be happy to recommend it to you--with enthusiasm if you're a PKD wo/man.

One thing, though, is that even as science fiction this film ( / novel) really pushes the boundaries of credulity. Get this: there's a president who is an agent for the Russian government, and he uses the fear of American citizens to suppress constitutional freedoms. He is also virulently racist, a complete charlatan, and a morally fetid human being. Who'd believe that America could ever fall for that kind of shit?

Not me.





1  According to stephenfollows.com,  "the maximum budget for a film to still be classified as low budget...[is] $2.12 million." And you wouldn't doubt Stephen, would you?

Shakespeare For Trump

"Alas! how should you govern any kingdom,

That know not how to use ambassadors,

Nor how to be contented with one wife,

Nor how to use your brothers brotherly,

Nor how to study for the people's welfare,

Nor how to shroud yourself from enemies?"

Henry VI, Part 3

Act IV, Scene iii

Yowza, is that perfect or what? I'll bet King Edward IV had a buddy in Russia, too.

De...uh uh uh...De fen...uh uh uh...Defending Tr...Trump. Sigh.

Here's something I never imagined myself saying: I agree with the Trump surrogate (whose name I can't remember--but he is a smug little fellow who appears regularly on MSNBC, where I saw him last night) when he said that the major news outlets were being unfair to Trump, because on one hand they regularly accuse him of being obdurate, yet when he yields his position he is invariably described in desultory terms. So now that he's (finally) relented and let the government re-open, news banners are saying that he "caved," he "blinked," he "backed down," he "wimped out." 

Now, just to be clear:

(1) I hate Trump, and am praying that he is run out of office (preferably on a rail) any minute now.

(2) I blame him for the shutdown, and think it is criminal that he did it and unforgivable that he caused it to continue for so long.

But using insulting terms to describe his actions when he's not being recalcitrant...when plenty of neutral terms are available...doesn't seem like fair game to me. 

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned guy, but I thought that the job of the news was to tell me what happened, not tell me what to think about what happened. I thought that was called propaganda.

UPDATE: Oh, it was Rick Santorum. He's back on CNN this morning saying pretty much the same thing...and I still have to agree with him on this point. The other members of the panel are either ignoring what he's saying or acting like they smell an elephant turd, though. I don't think failing to acknowledge an obvious truth is advancing the liberal cause, do you?

Just sayin', sir.

More Song About Serenity and Now

Hey...didja know about this?

It caught me by surprise when I spotted it on the shelf at Barnes & Noble...with a hefty list price of $22.95...but you can get it on Kindle RIGHT NOW for a mere $4.21. The regular digital price on it is  $8.99, though, so you might want to take care of that right now, while it's shiny.

Just sayin', sir.

666

A History of Philosophy, that is.

And only about 300-ish pages to go. 

So before the end of February, the dishes will be done.

Woo hoo! 


P.S. According to Wikipedia, AHoP is 5344 pages long...but by my count, I'm on page 5305 now...and have 327 pages to go. So there's that. But any way you cut it, the end is nigh.

Race Is M

I was talking to two  acquaintances yesterday and mentioned that my kids had insisted that I take them to Dairy Queen for Martin Luther King Day. I said something like, "I don't know what the connection is between Dairy Queen and Martin Luther King Day, but it made sense to them." One of the women started to say, "Fried--" and then stopped herself, but that was enough, wasn't it?

And this is not a nasty, mean-spirited woman. Quite the opposite, actua!ly. I don't know her well, but I know that she has dedicated her life to helping special needs adults, and that she is a passionate advocate for them. She's a good person. But she had to go out of her way for this, didn't she? Racism aside, it's not like Dairy Queen is primarily known as a fried chicken place. Her brain had to take a couple of right turns to get there.

So where is at to get to this?

And how to we get it out of our bones?

Shutdown

Only a rich person would have the effrontery to chastise a middle class person for not wanting to work for free. 

Fuck Lara Trump, man. And all others of that ilk. 

Autism Is

Frustrating

repetitive

loud

angry

repetitive

anxious

"I'm flipping my hands."

worried

repetitive

ritualistic

rigid

repetitive

repetitive

funny

astute

anxious

repetitive

awkward

embarrassing

repetitive

beautiful, too.

My Favorite Context Free Quote of the Week, January 21st, 2019

"Oh, so you're missing an eardrum?"

Jacqueline to Herself

(An excerpt from her latest impromptu audio-novel.)

Edgar Rice Burroughs, You So Funny!

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, I have really been enjoying Edgar Rice Burroughs's Carson of Venus books. In fact, I think that this series has surpassed the Pellucidar Series in my estimation and esteem...and I thought that that series was superb. 

By the time ERB wrote his first Carson book (Pirates of Venus), he had already published 7 John Carter of Mars books, 16 Tarzan books, and 4 Pellucidar books...and a lot of other stuff as well...so he was definitely hitting his stride. In fact, I think Pirates of Venus was his 57th book...so he was well on his way...but, since he published 84 books total (I think...the math gets fuzzy), he still had a ways to go. 

One of the things I love about these books is that ERB's sense of humor is back on display. Check out this little exchange in Carson of Venus, the third novel in the five book series:

"You must be a very wonderful man," he said admiringly. "What is your name?"

"Carson—and yours?"

"Lula," he replied, and then, "Carson is a strange name for a man. It sounds more like a woman's name."

"More so than Lula?" I asked, restraining a smile.

"Oh, my, yes; Lula is a very masculine name. I think it is a very sweet name, too; don't you?"

"Very," I assured him.

That's just funny, y'know? 

And I really like the character of Carson. For one thing, he fucks up on a pretty regular basis. Right from early on in book one, for instance, he is planning on making a trip to Mars, but he screws up and ends up on Venus instead. I like that in a man.

Also, he is not, like John Carter or Tarzan, a superman of any kind. Neither was David Innes, of course, but I like Carson even more.

And I have had the good luck to have started reading Carson of Venus just in time for a little Carson Renaissance. American Mythology just reprinted the Len Wein / Michael Kaluta series from the 70s (which was so awesome that even though I already had it--downloaded from the internet...from a legal site, by the way), I still bought it, and if they put it out in a collected edition, I'll buy that, too. Especially if they do it up right with some bangles and bingles. And Carson appeared as part of a 4 Part 4 World ERB Crossover event. And now there's a new Carson mini-series coming out. Hot damn.

Of course, none of it is as good as the books Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote.

That Covington Catholic Kid

Of course, the MAGA hat rubbed me the wrong way. Because it represents Trump, and Trump represents hatred and stupidity and bigotry.  And there was that kid's expression. He just seemed to be smirking at the Native American man. And he was right up in his face, for fuck's sake. And then there were the other kids in the background, chanting and jumping up and down and making weird gestures. It all seemed clear. 

Watching that video made me squirm. WHY wouldn't that kid get out of that man's face? What was he trying to prove? 

But he wasn't actually DOING anything. He didn't speak. It was just so weird. I should have thought about it. But I didn't.

I bought it. 

But there was more. There's a much longer video which shows a different story. It involves a small group of nasty, hateful Black men harassing the Covington Catholic kids. It shows the Native American man approaching that kid, not vice versa. If anything, it looks like the man is the aggressor, and the kid is just standing there while a stranger beats a drum in his face.

So now...I'm feeling disappointed in myself. I accepted the story I was given without examining it, without thinking it through. Without questioning the evidence.

Because it just seemed obvious. Because the kid's school itself immediately condemned his actions. Or "actions." Because...because I hate those fucking red hats.

That's the thing about hate, isn't it? It truncates your thought process. It makes it easy to believe what you want to believe. It makes it easy to ignore what you don't want to see.

Sorry, kid. 

ADDENDUM: I just saw a report on CNN in which a Native American woman who was there at the confrontation said that (1) there was no doubt that the kid and his peers were being disrespectful to the Native American man playing the drum, (2) that  the kids were chanting, "Built the Wall!" and ( 3) that she feared violence would break out.

Sigh.

I think I'm finished watching "the news" for awhile.

Sign of the Week

Well, shoot. I guess they're closz.

My Favorite Context Free Quote of the Week, January 19th, 2019

"Come on, let's see how much we're going for on eBay."

Toy Story 3

Screenplay by 

Michael Arndt1

1  Who also wrote the screenplay for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. And A Walk in the Woods. And The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. But I don't hold that against him, because he also wrote the screenplay for Little Miss Sunshine, and that covers quite a few sins.

Serenity Now!

I was QUITE pleased with the first BOOM! STUDIOS issue of Firefly (written by Greg Pak, art by Dan McDaid). In fact, I thought it was so good that not only was it the best comic book adaptation of Firefly I'd encountered...and I've read every one of them...but it actually made me feel like I was watching a new episode of the show. Mmm-hmm. So needless to say I was anxious for the second issue.

And was surprised to find out that I had missed it. I guess The Great Escape only got a few copies, and since New Comic Day is Wednesday and I rarely get there before Friday, it had sold out by the time I made it to the store. I didn't even realize that until issue #2 showed up on the Recently Reduced tab on Comixologya few weeks back. And I thought about just ditching the print comic and going for the e. I mean...it was only one dollar cheaper (at $2.99), but a dollar is a dollar. And I have switched over to electronic versions of several titles now.... 

But I held off. I really wanted this one as a print comic book. And then I saw that Firefly #3 was due out this week, so I thought that maybe I could pick up #2 as a back issue while I was at it. But guess what? The Great Escape had sold out of #3 when I looked today. And they didn't have #2 in their back issues. 

So I decided to bite the bullet and switch to the e-comic book. 

And then I thought, "But first I'll check at The Zone."

Well.

Not only did they have the new issue #3, but they still had #2 on the stand at cover price. Now, The Zone doesn't do that 15% off thing that The Great Escape does for holds customers, so I ended up spending a buck and a quarter more than I would have at The Great Escape...and a couple of bucks more than I would have spent for them via Comixology...but I was happy. Hope you're happy two.

And as for the books in question?

#2 was truly awesome. Not only does Greg Pak know these characters and capture their voices, but he is actually funny, too. The art leans more to the Big Foot side of the spectrum, but it works for me here. The characters don't "look" that much like the actors in the show, but they do feel like them, if you know what I mean.

#3 felt like a little bit of a let-down. But I think part of that was the matter, not the art. We get into some pretty fuckin' serious gos se here, actually, and it's just a little hard to deal with. I'll leave it to you to discover what that means.

But I'm definitely going to be back for issue #4, and I think you'll be happy if you do that, too...after acquiring issues #1, #2, and #3, of course...by whatever means you find to be necessary. Speaking of, looks like there's going to be a collection of the first four issues in the not too distant future--April 24 2019--so if you want to wait a little longer, there's that. Comixology already has the digital version listed as On Sale for $9.49  ($15.99), and Amazon is going to have a hardback for  $17.99 ($19.99) on April 30th. Mmm, hardcover.

Oh, speaking of...if you do go for the single print copies, I think you'll be pleased with the production values on this. Very nice cover stock, and the paper for the interior pages is much nicer than you get from The Other Guys. Also, the folks at BOOM! know how do to things right, so you get 22 uninterrupted story pages, then a teaser for the next issue, a two-page letters column (man, I miss those things), and THEN seven pages of ads. DC and Marvel should take a lesson from this. I am so tired of getting halfway through a Twinkies ad before I realize it's not part of the story.

Oh, one more thing. No, two more things. One Good, One Bad.

The Good Thing: I just realized that the artwork (by Dan McDaid) reminds me a bit of Keith Giffen back in the day...like around his later Legion of Super-Heroes stuff. I love that stuff. But it's just a little reminder, not a rip-off.

The Bad Thing: It's tiny. Hardly worth mentioning. But on the letters pages, they print the readers's words in black ink, but the responses are printed in yellow. I mean...yellow? Who thought THAT was a good idea?

Man...now I have to wait a whole month for another issue.

Jimmy Kalb on Comedy Central!

Check it out at 2:36!

Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene vii, l. 79

 "Knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven...."

 William Shake-speare

Breaking Library News: Open that Kanopy!

I was doing my usual online library check-in...I almost always have books heading my way, and I am constantly checking to see if they have a certain book or movie, etc. And something on the side of the Home Page caught my eye: STREAMING VIDEO ? I knew that would have to happen sooner or later, but I actually thought it would be later.

Well.

It only took a few seconds to set up an account, and then I took a look to see what there was to see. And oh, man, was I impressed. They have So Much Stuff that I want to see. They limit you to 5 per month, but hey, it's free, so no whining.

For instance...there's Loving Vincent. Seven Samurai. I think there's at least one (and sometimes several) movie for every Shake-speare play. There's Ladybird. I Am Not Your Negro. The Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Marwencol - Recovering from a Brutal Attack, an Artist Creates a Miniature World. (The documentary, not the superb but ill-fated movie.) And about a million other great movies. 

Are you still here?

Breaking News: Senator Lisa Murkowski so disgusted with her fellow Republicans that she migrates south for the winter.

Jayme Closs

Thank God that that little girl is safe. What a horrible ordeal she has been through...and what a horrible thing she has to carry with her for the rest of her life. I think the only thing that could make this worse for her is exactly what is now going on. In the story I heard, a reporter made reference to how this story was far from over because we didn't yet understand the MOTIVE of the murderer / kidnapper. And even as we speak there's a policeman giving a conference reference the murderer / kidnapper and his motive.

What the fuck? How does it help anyone to know why this guy did such a heinous thing? I can't think of a single possible benefit that comes out of it...except for the murderer / kidnapper. Due to the efforts of local and national reporters, he gets all kinds of attention for his deeds. He gets his name pushed into the public spotlight over and over again. He gets a huge reward, doesn't he? And how do you think that little girl feels about that? 

A long time ago, Peter Gabriel wrote a song called "Family Snapshot." It's about a guy who attempts to assassinate a politician. Here are some of the lyrics from the end of the song:

"I want to be somebody

You were like that too

If you don't get given you learn to take

And I will take you."

Holding my breath

Release the catch

And I let the bullet fly

All turned quiet I have been here before

Lonely boy hiding behind the front door

Friends have all gone home

There's my toy gun on the floor

Come back Mum and Dad

You're growing apart

You know that I'm growing up sad

I need some attention

I shoot into the light"

© Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

I think that anyone would have to agree that getting noticed, getting attention, is at least a part of the motivation for any kind of heinous action. I'm not going to parse it out in an attempt to convince you, as I hope that it's just obvious that this is true. 

So why give these people what they want? How about if we just report that the girl is now safe and not even name the evil bitch who killed her parents and kidnapped her?

For fuck's sake. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC

Just in case you don't do Twitter...check this out:

My Favorite Context Free Quote of the Week (1/10/19)

"I just got bit by a dead bear. Funny old life."

Game of Thrones

Season 7, Episode 6

 "Beyond the Wall"

Joseph's Bones

I can't remember what I was looking for via the library's online search page...oh, wait a minute...I just did. Rewind. I was listening to a book called Meet Me in Atlantis: My Obsessive Quest to Find the Sunken City by Mark Adams whilst out walking. I'd happened upon the book at Goodwill and thought about purchasing it, decided that I had enough books already and checked the library to see if perchance they had a copy, and found the downloadable audiobook. And I found it to be quite an interesting book. At one point the narrator was quoting from something or other...I think it was Plato's description of the site of Atlantis...and he used the phrase, "the bones of the earth." I liked that phrase so much that I actually remembered it when I got home from my walk an hour later, and Googled the phrase to see if I could locate the whole passage. I didn't find that, but I did come upon a book of that title, and I decided I would like to have a run at that if the library had a copy, so I went back to the library search page and typed it in there. And I came up with one hit: Joseph's Bones: Understanding the Struggle Between God and Mankind in the Bible by Jerome M. Segal. Well, they had me at "bones." So I put in a request for it, it arrived, and I started reading.

It captivated me right from the start. The explanation of the title, for instance. I've read the Bible all the way through twice. I've read dozens of Kid Versions of the Bible. I went to a Lutheran school from kindergarten through the sixth grade. I went to a Catholic university and had 15 hours in theology. I was married to a woman who was a director of religious education at several different churches in Louisville. I have attended hundreds of church services. In short: I know the Bible pretty well. Better than most. But I'd never heard this story before. Before Joseph died, he asked that his people take his bones back home for burial. Turned out to be a difficult task as the Israelites were subsequently enslaved in Egypt and spent a few centuries there...not to mention the whole wandering in the wilderness for forty years thing. But 400 years later, the Israelites finally made it, and, as we are told in Joshua that Joseph's bones are buried at Shechem. Right here:

Public Domain

Mr. Segal talks about how this story forms the parameters of a six book "novel" which runs from Genesis to Exodus to Leviticus to Numbers to Deuteronomy to Joshua. It's the story of how the Israelites are faithful to a pledge that they made to Joseph...over the course of 400 years...and how that faithfulness seems to contradict the predominant image of the Israelites as bitchy, undependable, feckless, and faithless. (In fact, that's pretty much literally how God talks about the Israelites.) 

And that's just the start. I'm only about 100 pages into the book right now (it's about 300 pages long), but the basic premise seems to be that we have been reading the Old Testament from the wrong perspective...and that it is actually the story of how God became God...or, more provocatively, how Man taught God to be a Just God. That was a little startling for me. And I like startling. Especially when it makes sense, and this premise does seem to do that. For instance, there's the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which Abraham teaches God that it is wrong to destroy two cities in which there could be innocent people, and plea bargains with God on this matter. It doesn't turn out well for Sodom or Gomorrah in the end, but that's beside the point. Mr. Segal also does some neat things with the story of Abraham and Isaac...a story which is pretty profoundly disturbing if you give it any thought at all. (I imagine Isaac watching his dad out of the corner of his eye for the rest of his life, for one thing.) 

But this morning I hit what was for me The Big Time. Or maybe The Bigger Time.  Segal is discussing God's first conversation with Moses (the burning bush one) and when Moses asks God what his name is, God plays a little coy with him. Check this out:

"What is at stake for God--and here I mean from the very beginning of the story, when he creates man in his image--is the question of his own reality. God's fundamental project is To Be, and for this he needs mankind, and ultimately he decides that he needs a specific people, the Israelites. The paradox is that a god that calls himself "I Am" can only be if there are others that recognize him as God."

So not only does Man teach God to be morally just, but God's identity as God depends upon His being perceived as such by Man. Well, not only is this getting pretty damned close to Bishop Berkeley's  esse est percipi (aut percipere)...it is also suggesting that God evolves over the course of His relationship with Man. Which is one of the ideas I had started assembling due to various bits I'd read in A History of Philosophy (see HERE for details. 

Funny how all this stuff seems to come together...especially when it just kind of fell into place by bumping into some stuff. I would guess that a part of that is just a matter of keeping your eyes open, noticing shit, and being willing to explore a bit. But there's another element, too. I don't think of it as Fate, because that seems like a really stupid concept to me. But maybe something more akin to synchronicity...maybe even so far as the suggestion that there is some force pulsating beneath the level of our conscious awareness...some force that is calling us towards something that is good for us. Not necessarily is some mystical sense. Maybe more akin to the fact that some people with mineral deficiencies eat dirt and plaster. This is as close to an appreciation for Aristotelian mind / body separation that I can get: there are times when the body knows in a way that is not accessible to the mind.

And so on.

Copleston, Herzen, Education, & My Cat.

Did something today that I don't think I've ever done before: read twenty pages of A History of Philosophy. It's these Russians, man. They really make my heart go pitter pat. Check this out, for instance:

"...[T]he greater the awareness, the greater is the independence, whereas the weaker the awareness, the more does the influence of environment prevail."

Re: Alexander Herzin

A History of Philosophy Volume X: Russian Philosophy

That's pretty much the most apt summary of the purpose of education that I can imagine. Wish I'd had it on tap back in the day. "Mr. Kalb, why do we have to learn this?"

"To increase your awareness and allow you a chance to prevail over the insidious influence of the environment."

Funny, though: it's really just The Cave Allegory, ennit? Sooner or later, it all comes down to Plato. And sooner or later, all Plato comes down to The Cave Allegory.

My philosophy reading cat agrees.

2 Things I Found While Attempting to Clear My Desk This Morning

&

Item 1 is something I rescued from the trash. My daughter Jacqueline, who is crazy 1 , had written this note, taped it to a present she had wrapped for St. Lucy, stored the present in her room for several weeks, and then let St. Lucy open it on her day (December 13th). She's a little hard to decipher and the paper is a little wrinkly from being balled up and thrown into the trash, so here's the sub-title:

Happy 20th Birthday 

St. Lucy from the Bronx

New York City St. Lucy's Church gift

shop contents: one St. Lucy statue

with love your boyfriend Aaron Jessie

and Jacqueline Michelle Kalb and

friends.

So get this. First off, Jacqueline imagines that for her birthday, St. Lucy would like to have a statue of herself. Which sounds crazy at first, but think about it: don't you wish that somebody would give you a statue of yourself for your birthday. I know I do. (Hint, hint.)

Second off, St. Lucy died when she was 21, and you can bet that Jacqueline knows that--hence this is for her 20th birthday.

Third off, the address given is a reference to the Church of St. Lucy in the Bronx, New York, which we have twice visited. And yes, there is a gift shop. And they do sell statues of St. Lucy. And we did buy one there. Along with some other things. (But it's only open on Sundays, so plan accordingly.)

Fourth off, Jacqueline has not only imputed to St. Lucy (A Virgin) a boyfriend, but it is Aaron...The Little Drummer Boy. Specifically TLDB depicted in the 1968 stop motion animated television special produced by Rankin/Bass Productions. (Which Jacqueline will ONLY watch on VHS.) Jacqueline likes to ship characters from diverse tales. Thomas the Tank Engine goes to Hogwarts, for instance. (Gryffindor House, of course.) 

To me, the most beautiful thing about this beautiful thing is that Jacqueline had no intention of showing it to anyone else. She wasn't doing it for the amusement of anyone else, she wasn't doing it because she wanted anyone else to acknowledge it. She was doing it because it pleased her to do it. And because it pleased her friends, especially St. Lucy and Aaron. (Though, as you can see from the final phrase, there were others in the shadows.) To my mind, she is a novelist who has transcended the need for an audience...which might be the purest form of the novelist...and, indeed, transcending the need for a physical record of her characters and their actions. See, this wasn't just a one-off. It's one scene in a continuing series. It's also a scene which she may return to and revise. But the only way I'll know about it is if I listen at her door or check the trashcan regularly. (And yes, I HAVE tried hiding a camera. Several times. It takes her about four seconds to find them. You really can't get that kind of shit past an autistic person.)

Item 2 is what remains of a thought I had whilst reading A History of Philosophy. Again, the writing is a bit hard scrabble, so cue the subtitle machine:

Is hunger proof of the existence of food? It sounds like a stupid question...but is it? Is it possible to want, to need, something which does not exist?

I can not want something which does exist, obviously. But can I not want something which doesn't exist? I suppose so, but it seems silly...as if I have to stretch my imagination to distort things which do exist into unfamiliar forms, just to prove that I do not want them. And, in fact, it seems that I have to make use of things that do exist and which I do not want and mate them with things which do not exist in order to not want them. So, for instance, I do not like the idea of eating eels. (Although I never have.) So if I "create" eel ice cream, which doesn't exist, I can say I don't want it--but I'm really not wanting the part of it which does exist, which would seem to invalidate the whole thing. So I'm going to suggest that we can not really not want that which doesn't exist.

The other bit, from the inside of the envelope, just says

The evolution of God from inchoate mass to wrathful warrior to kind and gentle Father.

The second part is just a thought...in a long chain of thoughts...about how the depiction of God in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible seems so bifurcated. Well, trifurcated here, I suppose.

The first part I'm not so sure of. If the reasoning is true, and you can't not want what doesn't exist (am I the only one who is thinking of Sinéad O'Connor right now?), then all I can say is this: I can't claim to be a Christian at this point. I can't even be counted on to claim that I believe in (a) God. But I really want to. And if you can't not want what doesn't exist, then it seems to me that you can only want what does exist...knowhatahmsayin? I doubt that St. Thomas Aquinas took the eel ice cream approach to proving the existence of God, but I have to say, it makes as much (and possibly more) sense to me than the First Mover or the Uncaused Cause.

And in conclusion...

It also seems clear to me that there is a lot of similarity between me and my daughter. All comparison advantages go to her, but we seem to have the same kind of minds. We really just do what we do because it's what we do. I have to say, though, that I wouldn't mind having a little audience.

Hence this.

1  Just sayin', sir. And I do not say this with any hint of scorn, mockery, or condescension. Au con·traire. Admiration, envy, and aspiration to are the operant words, actually. In addition to being crazy, she is also autistic, and if that makes you feel sorry for her then you obviously have not met her. Her day beats your month. When's the last time you talked to a saint?

Getting Friendly With The Foxes

I was watching Fox & Friends this morning...one-half desire for fairness, for hearing from The Other Side, one-half desire for Ainsley Earhardt, The Hot Blonde...when I saw this story. According to it, Fox viewers had raised / helped to raise (I'm not clear on that, but it's not the salient factor here) $350,000 to help  Ronil Singh's widow...to pay off her mortgage and to start a college fund for their son. 

 Ronil Singh was a brown man, and an immigrant.

So thinking about Fox & Friends and its viewers as racists who hate immigrants just doesn't play out, does it? (And I have to confess that I have had that thought myself on occasion.) 

And BTW, I also spent time with MSNBC and CNN this morning...much more time than I spent with Fox, actually...but I didn't hear anything about Ronil Singh or the fund to help his widow and baby.

As me sainted mother used to say, “There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us,

it doesn't behoove any of us to speak evil of the rest of us.”

And hey, bonus fact: when I Googled this quote to make sure that I had it right, I found out that these words were uttered by none other than Mr. Edgar Cayce. How about that.

What's So Funny About Biggus Dickus?

Loosing My Religion: Special Edition, Starring Russian Philosophy

Hardy Partier that I am, I spent the waning hours of 2018 soberly reading the introduction to Copleston's A History of Philosophy, Volume 10: Russian Philosophy. And I have to say...it made me giddy. Not to mention happy. Happier than drinking copious amounts of alcohol and causing small explosions to happen in the street.

For one thing, because it means that, yes, I have finished the third omnibus...

...though I did have to push a little bit for the last week to make that happen. (I just really wanted to be done with that poor, falling apart Omnibus 3 and start clean for 2019. So I upped my reading ante to 14 pages a day for the last week.)

For another thing, it meant that I had 645 pages to go before finishing the whole History. Big Bucket List Item check-off.

For another another thing, because I have been awfully fond of several Russians for quite a few years now. (The usual suspects.)

And just a few days in, I am already feeling the love. I've met a couple of fellows whose thoughts really stirred my interest--enough so that I'm trying to locate complete works by them. This Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadayev (Пётр Я́ковлевич Чаада́ев) guy, for instance. Somebody really needs to make a biopic on that man.

And today I've been reading about another New To Me fellow for whom I have eyes: Ivan Vasilyevich Kireyevsky (Ива́н Васи́льевич Кире́евский). Here's a little something something on that:

"...Kireevsky ingeniously finds a connection between rationalism and Protestantism."

Now, I suppose that's not stunningly insightful...but it made me stop and take two steps back to look in the shop window. It seems pretty obvious, really...but it never occurred to me to think of it in those terms before. And it is very useful to me.

I grew up in the Protestant church. (Lutheran, Missouri Synod.) It wasn't a joyous experience. Nor was it beclouded by the vapors of mysticism. Yet when I started doing my Church Walkabout, I pretty quickly tired of Protestant churches and decided to specialize in Catholic ones. I only gradually began to realize that all of the things that were absent from and scorned by the Protestants...ornate trappings, statues, crucifixes, incense, etc....were things that spoke to me, that called me into the other world which is, to me, where true religion resides. The Mystical stuff. Twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing, y'know.

So Kireevsky's seeing the connection between Protestantism and rationalism implies to me (and maybe he says this forthrightly, but I haven't beached on that shore yet) that Catholicism is connected to mysticism in a way that Protestantism really cannot be. In a way that Protestantism doesn't want to be. In a way that Protestantism wasn't designed to be.

And that non-rational element is what I want to find in a church. It might even be what I need to find in my life.

To be continued....