Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
What is there to answer the longing of 6.5 billion hopeless broken bugs who don't know where they came from or where they're going.
I'm concerned about my generation. We are more lost than ever before. We're hurtling towards darkness and we can't even make out our hands anymore. It's getting darker and darker and we're getting more and more sure of ourselves in everything.
And in all the billion fractures you can hear the reservations and second-guesses of 100 mph into the unknown. They creep like whispers out of a chasm. We're out of control and sometimes we sense the terror we should always feel.
We're all on this slide.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
A Journey of Peace
A thought I have for what might make a good book.
Travel essays and writing are typically verbose and almost always sentimental or cynical.
Forget all that.
I have my faith in the Judeo-Christian God. I think the whole world reflects different wavelengths of His truth. A part of the character of God is peace. A fount of peace. A good book would be a photographic/essay book about peace. It wouldn't have to be overtly Christian. Done well, it would bleed Christianity as subtlely (and profusely) as Tolkien.
Full moons on the Yangtze, Japanese tea ceremony, a thunderstorm in India, tea in London, spring in central Texas, fall in the Shenadoah, a burning sunset in Africa, a dinner in the Amazon. Not about adventures. That might be a small part of it. But it's not the focus. It would be a tight thesis. If photographed well, it could be extraordinary. The writing would need to be sharp too. Sparse, meditative. No cynicism. I suppose it could be romantic. But this isn't necessarily about the cultures. It's more about how God's peace could be reflected in the culture.
It doesn't seek to set anyone on a pedestal. It seeks to shine a light on different diamonds and see how they catch.
Travel essays and writing are typically verbose and almost always sentimental or cynical.
Forget all that.
I have my faith in the Judeo-Christian God. I think the whole world reflects different wavelengths of His truth. A part of the character of God is peace. A fount of peace. A good book would be a photographic/essay book about peace. It wouldn't have to be overtly Christian. Done well, it would bleed Christianity as subtlely (and profusely) as Tolkien.
Full moons on the Yangtze, Japanese tea ceremony, a thunderstorm in India, tea in London, spring in central Texas, fall in the Shenadoah, a burning sunset in Africa, a dinner in the Amazon. Not about adventures. That might be a small part of it. But it's not the focus. It would be a tight thesis. If photographed well, it could be extraordinary. The writing would need to be sharp too. Sparse, meditative. No cynicism. I suppose it could be romantic. But this isn't necessarily about the cultures. It's more about how God's peace could be reflected in the culture.
It doesn't seek to set anyone on a pedestal. It seeks to shine a light on different diamonds and see how they catch.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
A quick pensee (from work!)
The Deconstruction of Narrative
How Naturalism, in addition to the challenges of circularity and normativism, naturalism also faces another challenge to its foundations. Naturalism, fundamentally, cannot contain narrative. Obviously, in this framework the humanities are destroyed.
Causality
Our ability to form narrative, is perhaps a huge proof of God's existence.
Are ultimate conclusions about causality impossible? E.g.- narrative (even the most self-critical), require, by necessity, tunnel vision. If it wasn't tunnel vision, it would be as Mary Midgley said- we would be indiscrimenant fact gatherers without any conclusions at all about causality. X would not cause Y which causes Z. There is only X. X is all there is at all moments past and present. We would, essentially, be dead. We would be the same as a mirror that reflects the sky or a mountain. We would reflect nothing but the randomness and meaninglessness of reality. No thought, no conclusions, no logic, no reason, no emotion, no mind, no body even. We would be an empty recording. A mute phonograph. Narrative is an aberration. Beyond an aberration, it cannot exist.
Interesting to note that a summation of the naturalistic response to the problems of circularity particularly, is: Well, though that approach is indeed rigorous and completely obedient to the rules of logic and reason, it isn't REALLY essential. And by essential, we really mean, its resolution is not necessary for us to live how we want, experiment with what we want, and basically do what we want for the remainder of our ultimately meaningless days. But this isn't rigorous, academic, or any other thing. The modernist experiment produced some fantastic results, but was ultimately driving a car it didn't really own on a very short road ending in a boulder. It gave them a good perspective on some things, but they wrecked the parent's car. Some (Dawkins?) have refused to acknowledge this. Are we in a state of widespread denial?
The above may sound polemic, and perhaps even angry. But it's actually not. It really seems to be the conclusion of a set of values.
Naturalism- No intrinsic meaning, no narrative, etc. If there is any meaning or narrative, it is essentially man-created. This isn't atheism at all. It's very Greek. Except that we (some. the great perceivers) are gods among men. John Dewey, Einstein, Dawkins et al. Are our gods and the masses remain the men. Indeed, it is absolutely Greek. One of the paradigms in ancient Greek were that the gods were arbiters of some kinds of power and may sometimes influence or rise above the influences of fate. Ultimately they were still ruled by the forces of fate. In the modernist paradigm, the hazy laws of nature are the new wheels of fate. In all this, the shadowyness, the altars to an unknown god, are very interesting. Very familiar sounding.
How Naturalism, in addition to the challenges of circularity and normativism, naturalism also faces another challenge to its foundations. Naturalism, fundamentally, cannot contain narrative. Obviously, in this framework the humanities are destroyed.
Causality
Our ability to form narrative, is perhaps a huge proof of God's existence.
Are ultimate conclusions about causality impossible? E.g.- narrative (even the most self-critical), require, by necessity, tunnel vision. If it wasn't tunnel vision, it would be as Mary Midgley said- we would be indiscrimenant fact gatherers without any conclusions at all about causality. X would not cause Y which causes Z. There is only X. X is all there is at all moments past and present. We would, essentially, be dead. We would be the same as a mirror that reflects the sky or a mountain. We would reflect nothing but the randomness and meaninglessness of reality. No thought, no conclusions, no logic, no reason, no emotion, no mind, no body even. We would be an empty recording. A mute phonograph. Narrative is an aberration. Beyond an aberration, it cannot exist.
Yet, naturalism is an epistemology of only observable causality. It undermines itself in this way in addition to the problems of circularity and normativism.
Additionally, if we are a result of purely naturalistic causes, then our conclusions are deterministic and will forever be impossible to rise above as Dawkins would like. our conclusions are not, then, based on an apprehension of logic or a larger pattern, but mindless noise. If this is so, then the conclusions are void. Natural cannot be all there is. It's logically impossible. Ergo, Godel.
Additionally, if we are a result of purely naturalistic causes, then our conclusions are deterministic and will forever be impossible to rise above as Dawkins would like. our conclusions are not, then, based on an apprehension of logic or a larger pattern, but mindless noise. If this is so, then the conclusions are void. Natural cannot be all there is. It's logically impossible. Ergo, Godel.
The argument from evolution is unalterable too.
Godel's God is inevitable from many routes. They all lead to it. These are all the problems of Spinoza.
If a room only costs the Ritz $75/night… A Hampton Inn is probably only like $35/night….
If this is so, you could offer free stays for families, requiring a dinner at the hotel restaurant, which will almost undoubtedly hit over $50.
Godel's God is inevitable from many routes. They all lead to it. These are all the problems of Spinoza.
If a room only costs the Ritz $75/night… A Hampton Inn is probably only like $35/night….
If this is so, you could offer free stays for families, requiring a dinner at the hotel restaurant, which will almost undoubtedly hit over $50.
So a hostel with cheaper rates for more people and free for over 10…. Then you could make good money.
Interesting to note that a summation of the naturalistic response to the problems of circularity particularly, is: Well, though that approach is indeed rigorous and completely obedient to the rules of logic and reason, it isn't REALLY essential. And by essential, we really mean, its resolution is not necessary for us to live how we want, experiment with what we want, and basically do what we want for the remainder of our ultimately meaningless days. But this isn't rigorous, academic, or any other thing. The modernist experiment produced some fantastic results, but was ultimately driving a car it didn't really own on a very short road ending in a boulder. It gave them a good perspective on some things, but they wrecked the parent's car. Some (Dawkins?) have refused to acknowledge this. Are we in a state of widespread denial?
The above may sound polemic, and perhaps even angry. But it's actually not. It really seems to be the conclusion of a set of values.
Naturalism- No intrinsic meaning, no narrative, etc. If there is any meaning or narrative, it is essentially man-created. This isn't atheism at all. It's very Greek. Except that we (some. the great perceivers) are gods among men. John Dewey, Einstein, Dawkins et al. Are our gods and the masses remain the men. Indeed, it is absolutely Greek. One of the paradigms in ancient Greek were that the gods were arbiters of some kinds of power and may sometimes influence or rise above the influences of fate. Ultimately they were still ruled by the forces of fate. In the modernist paradigm, the hazy laws of nature are the new wheels of fate. In all this, the shadowyness, the altars to an unknown god, are very interesting. Very familiar sounding.
Hawking's bubble universe= Greek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
