Dear Self,
I think you're mostly writing for yourself. Indeed, I can't think of anyone who more enjoys reading your various silly notes than you do yourself. (Cf. Michael Flanders, introducing his Mozart without an horn). The only thing, then, to wonder is whether that's really quite proper? Is it cricket?
I'm sure most bloggers, of the ammateur sort at least, reach some point of wondering whether they are writing only for themselves or for their readers. But, if I may say so, you've fallen into the particular habit of writing not for anyone. Sure, that's the "gimick", the blog-line "letters to ... no-one in particular". Even if the address is to various and no-one in particular, the writing ought to be for someone. It needs both an ad and an ut. You might do well for ad now and then, but the ut needs more focus!
I hope this has been helpful. In any case, I remain, in friendship,
thee.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Vere surrexit!
Re. Daffodils
Dear Folk,
Paul has been a gentleman, and on Vigil Day posted some stuff like this:
Of course, it's just right for Easter Season, so with that, Happy Easter to you all!
God Bless,
another one practising for sainthood
Dear Folk,
Paul has been a gentleman, and on Vigil Day posted some stuff like this:
Of course, it's just right for Easter Season, so with that, Happy Easter to you all!
God Bless,
another one practising for sainthood
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Sci-Fi Coolness Test
Dear Gene,
Don't correct me if I'm wrong, because you know I'm not... Does anyone --- can anyone possibly --- believe that, in a Star Trek future, anyone in The Federation would practise/use abortion?
I can hear McCoy --- or Dr. Hologram --- objecting "I'm a doctor, not a butcher."
Of course they wouldn't. There isn't an economy anymore (OK, there's a black market that hangs out at Quark's on DS9...) because it isn't necessary for universal prosperity; so there's no poverty, either. There's a marvelous array of non-addictive drugs that dull pain but won't interfere with motor-control or kinesthetic sense, so no-one's afraid of delivery. And the same super-fancified medical care available also means no-one worries about whether their kid is born missing an arm, or with trisomy-21, or... because they'll have what they need to care for and mittigate those difficulties. And let's not forget that babies are cool!. Not least cool are those klingon-romulan-human-bajoran-descended babies who give clear witness to the oft-ignored fact that all sapient life is made in the image and likeness of God, and that the salvation of all of them was purchased by God-made-flesh one Friday Afternoon some two thousand orbits since on a molten-rocky planet about a main-sequence star of 1/20 the mass of those stars bound for black-hole status.
OK, so perhaps ST hasn't always imagined a perfect universe of perfect people. That's OK, because people aren't perfect: they are fallen. Thoroughly Utopian visions are not science fiction, but userpers of Heaven. And, for sure, we don't see nearly enough of Riker's ill-gotten brood anywhere --- but, again, think of all the young'uns we do see!
You just know it's true.
With fond memories
Don't correct me if I'm wrong, because you know I'm not... Does anyone --- can anyone possibly --- believe that, in a Star Trek future, anyone in The Federation would practise/use abortion?
I can hear McCoy --- or Dr. Hologram --- objecting "I'm a doctor, not a butcher."
Of course they wouldn't. There isn't an economy anymore (OK, there's a black market that hangs out at Quark's on DS9...) because it isn't necessary for universal prosperity; so there's no poverty, either. There's a marvelous array of non-addictive drugs that dull pain but won't interfere with motor-control or kinesthetic sense, so no-one's afraid of delivery. And the same super-fancified medical care available also means no-one worries about whether their kid is born missing an arm, or with trisomy-21, or... because they'll have what they need to care for and mittigate those difficulties. And let's not forget that babies are cool!. Not least cool are those klingon-romulan-human-bajoran-descended babies who give clear witness to the oft-ignored fact that all sapient life is made in the image and likeness of God, and that the salvation of all of them was purchased by God-made-flesh one Friday Afternoon some two thousand orbits since on a molten-rocky planet about a main-sequence star of 1/20 the mass of those stars bound for black-hole status.
OK, so perhaps ST hasn't always imagined a perfect universe of perfect people. That's OK, because people aren't perfect: they are fallen. Thoroughly Utopian visions are not science fiction, but userpers of Heaven. And, for sure, we don't see nearly enough of Riker's ill-gotten brood anywhere --- but, again, think of all the young'uns we do see!
You just know it's true.
With fond memories
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
On Man's First Office
Dear Auntie's readers and nephews and nieces,
I am a Christian --- in fact, I hold to the universal and apostolic faith of the first Christians, which is to say I am a Catholic (from the Greek, in latin letters "kata-" and "holos"; think of "catastrophe"--- all tumbled about --- and "holographic" --- the whole picture); this has probably been made obvious before, but it bears mentioning.
For the record, I don't at all mind being (called) a Latin Rite Catholic, because I am. I'm also trying to shore-up my scant Latin.
My objection to the conjunction "Conservative Catholic" (or "Liberal Catholic") is that they start as lies. "Liberal", in the mouth of a "Coservative" is meant to be an insult synonymous with "libertine", and second cousin to "libertarian". "Conserative", spoken by a "Liberal" means "much-too-conservative" --- unimaginative and unforgiving. Making them names for mutually-opposed groups of people disguises the fact that the Church teaches all Catholics to conserve the sacred traditions handed on to us from our ancestors in the faith, and also to liberally share with our neighbors in need that wherewith God has blessed us in plenty --- e.g. in spiritual and coroporal works of mercy.
Understandably, it's helpful --- as Ms. White emphasizes --- to distinguish between the distinct; on the other hand, it is creatures that most need names, not delusions1. And this is why, in the documents of the various Church councils up to Concilium Vaticanii I you will find
That is, particular errors are first defined (described plainly) and then condemned.
The councils and creeds and canons and anathemas have a technical language, but it doesn't become a jargon --- the words are used to be precise, not to be obscure or lazy; and so we don't find anything like
Some years ago, a friend I haven't seen in a long time argued that the now-disused so-called Anti-Modernist Oath had been a mistake in the first place because it condemned a collection of errors that no person had ever held altogether --- that is, he saw it as defining a creed which as an assemblage was to be condemned --- and which had never had any adherents. This struck me as odd then, and now I can hypothesize that he was distracted by the parenthetical "modernist" label, and answer that modernism as a movement may never have existed in the form of adhering to all of such-and-such errors, but such and such errors had severally become fashionable, and in all cases motivated by a desire for modernitas, of wrongly wanting to update something that was inherently eternal. Because there had been found several ways for modernizing desires to fall into error, it was convenient in the Scholastic sense to condemn the several sorts of error. To say that the oath was to reject a belief called modernism is as much to mistake the Councils of Nicaea I and Constantinople I as rejecting Arianism as the errors of Arius. rather than as errors. Instead, the canonical form might have allowed Arius to repent and recant, had he accepted such grace.
That's all I have right now.
a taxonomist of errors
1: not being psychiatrists, we are not making a study of delusions; we are distinguishing them from creatures.
I am a Christian --- in fact, I hold to the universal and apostolic faith of the first Christians, which is to say I am a Catholic (from the Greek, in latin letters "kata-" and "holos"; think of "catastrophe"--- all tumbled about --- and "holographic" --- the whole picture); this has probably been made obvious before, but it bears mentioning.
For the record, I don't at all mind being (called) a Latin Rite Catholic, because I am. I'm also trying to shore-up my scant Latin.
My objection to the conjunction "Conservative Catholic" (or "Liberal Catholic") is that they start as lies. "Liberal", in the mouth of a "Coservative" is meant to be an insult synonymous with "libertine", and second cousin to "libertarian". "Conserative", spoken by a "Liberal" means "much-too-conservative" --- unimaginative and unforgiving. Making them names for mutually-opposed groups of people disguises the fact that the Church teaches all Catholics to conserve the sacred traditions handed on to us from our ancestors in the faith, and also to liberally share with our neighbors in need that wherewith God has blessed us in plenty --- e.g. in spiritual and coroporal works of mercy.
Understandably, it's helpful --- as Ms. White emphasizes --- to distinguish between the distinct; on the other hand, it is creatures that most need names, not delusions1. And this is why, in the documents of the various Church councils up to Concilium Vaticanii I you will find
NOT FROM A REAL COUNCIL
Any who teaches that the Holy Trinity is made of chocolate LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
Any who teaches that even moderate enjoyment of chocolate is inherently inimical to salvation LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
That is, particular errors are first defined (described plainly) and then condemned.
The councils and creeds and canons and anathemas have a technical language, but it doesn't become a jargon --- the words are used to be precise, not to be obscure or lazy; and so we don't find anything like
NOT FORMAL OF A REAL COUNCILInstead, we would read of anyone who might teach that "men are saved and justified solely through their own personal good works or by the own merit", that such folk are teaching error, they are a scandal to the faithful, and for the good of their faith all faithful must have no dealings with such folk until they recant and correct their teaching.
Pelagians are wrong.
ALSO NOT FORMAL OF A REAL COUNCIL
Anyone who agrees with Pelagius is wrong.
Some years ago, a friend I haven't seen in a long time argued that the now-disused so-called Anti-Modernist Oath had been a mistake in the first place because it condemned a collection of errors that no person had ever held altogether --- that is, he saw it as defining a creed which as an assemblage was to be condemned --- and which had never had any adherents. This struck me as odd then, and now I can hypothesize that he was distracted by the parenthetical "modernist" label, and answer that modernism as a movement may never have existed in the form of adhering to all of such-and-such errors, but such and such errors had severally become fashionable, and in all cases motivated by a desire for modernitas, of wrongly wanting to update something that was inherently eternal. Because there had been found several ways for modernizing desires to fall into error, it was convenient in the Scholastic sense to condemn the several sorts of error. To say that the oath was to reject a belief called modernism is as much to mistake the Councils of Nicaea I and Constantinople I as rejecting Arianism as the errors of Arius. rather than as errors. Instead, the canonical form might have allowed Arius to repent and recant, had he accepted such grace.
That's all I have right now.
a taxonomist of errors
1: not being psychiatrists, we are not making a study of delusions; we are distinguishing them from creatures.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Interesting to note
Dear Christian,
Fr. Homilist today remarked on Our Lord's revelation and veiling today --- acts of the Divine Goodness, appearing contrary, but each suited to our needs.
I think it's a nifty observation that in today's Gospel (EF calendar) in fact we see the fulfilment of two petitions from Our Lord's Prayer: give us this day our daily bread --- the feeding of the multitudes --- and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil --- seeing they are in danger of a great sacrilege, He removes the immediate temptation of His presence.
Let us never give up hope that God fulfils His promises to us!
Your brother in Christ
Fr. Homilist today remarked on Our Lord's revelation and veiling today --- acts of the Divine Goodness, appearing contrary, but each suited to our needs.
I think it's a nifty observation that in today's Gospel (EF calendar) in fact we see the fulfilment of two petitions from Our Lord's Prayer: give us this day our daily bread --- the feeding of the multitudes --- and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil --- seeing they are in danger of a great sacrilege, He removes the immediate temptation of His presence.
Let us never give up hope that God fulfils His promises to us!
Your brother in Christ
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
At the gate.
A spot in Middle Earth, eh?
Hmmm...
There might be much to say about Dor Firn-i-Guinar --- the "Land of the Dead that Live" a name that should resound in the hearts of all werewolves --- only we don't hear much about it as a place beyond that there are Ents living nearby at the time. I'd very much like to do a post about a spot I can only call Annon Torech Ungol, which I wrote about obliquely here, and Meredith here. Alas, I haven't got that volume handy just now.
So I'll have to try at two snatched hints at the texts... I've read it too often, but I can't be sure of memory!
... someone else will have to supply the precise words, if they like. Now, it's bad enough that the place would be lifeless in itself, But can you imagine? Somewhere no-one had ever laughed? And this is also a much-used highway. There are tales of doomed prisonners cheering eachother with jokes at Auschwitz and Dachau. In this place, it was Frodo and Sam.
That's my locus.
UPDATE
I've got my book back, and here are the proper texts:
Goodness me! but it's quite a bit thicker, what with trying to keep enough of the structure/context. I particularly like the internal contrast with a cozy fireplace; you might think it made the present place feel more desolate, but I find it actually softens the mood. It is as if our hobbit heroes actually conjure up some coziness for themselves with these innocent diversions.
Hmmm...
There might be much to say about Dor Firn-i-Guinar --- the "Land of the Dead that Live" a name that should resound in the hearts of all werewolves --- only we don't hear much about it as a place beyond that there are Ents living nearby at the time. I'd very much like to do a post about a spot I can only call Annon Torech Ungol, which I wrote about obliquely here, and Meredith here. Alas, I haven't got that volume handy just now.
So I'll have to try at two snatched hints at the texts... I've read it too often, but I can't be sure of memory!
`"Now where's that Gollum got off to? I used to think he was after food, but I don't think that can be the case here. Not unless there's some sort of rock he fancies." ...
`Frodo laughed; such a sound as had not been heard in that part of the world since ... Sam was suddenly quiet, worried almost as if the very stones had ears. But Frodo laughed again ...
... someone else will have to supply the precise words, if they like. Now, it's bad enough that the place would be lifeless in itself, But can you imagine? Somewhere no-one had ever laughed? And this is also a much-used highway. There are tales of doomed prisonners cheering eachother with jokes at Auschwitz and Dachau. In this place, it was Frodo and Sam.
That's my locus.
UPDATE
I've got my book back, and here are the proper texts:
In a dark crevice between two great piers of rock they sat down: ...
[Sam:] 'There's a wicked feeling about this place.' He sniffed. 'And a smell, I fancy. Do you notice it? A queer kind of smell, stuffy. I don't like it.'
'I don't like anything here at all,' said Frodo, 'step or stone, breath or bone. Earth, air and water all seem accursed. But so our path is laid.'
...
'... I wonder if we shall ever be put into songs or tales. We're in one, of course; but I mean: put into words, you know, told by the fireside, or read out of a great big book with red and black letters, years and years afterwards. And people will say: "Let's hear about Frodo and the Ring!" and they'll say "Yes, that's one of my favourite stories. Frodo was very brave, wasn't he, dad?" " Yes, my boy, the famousest of hobbits, and that's saying a lot."'
'It's saying a lot too much,' said Frodo, and he laughed, a long clear laugh from his heart. Such a sound had not been heard in those places since Sauron came to middle-earth. To Sam suddenly it seemed as if all the stones were listening and the tall rocks leaning over them. But Frodo did not heed them; he laughed again. ...
... 'You and I, Sam, are still stuck in the worst places of the story, and it is all too likely that some will say that this point: "Shut the book now, dad; we don't want to read any more."'
'Maybe.' said Sam, 'but I wouldn't be one to say that. Things done and over and made into part of a the great tales are different. Why, even Gollum might be good in a tale, ...
'Gollum!," he called. 'Would you like to be the hero---now where's he got to again? There was no sign of him...
'I don't like his sneaking off without saying,' said Sam. 'And least of all now. He can't be looking for food up here, not unless there's some kind of rock he fancies. Why, there isn't even a bit of moss!'
Goodness me! but it's quite a bit thicker, what with trying to keep enough of the structure/context. I particularly like the internal contrast with a cozy fireplace; you might think it made the present place feel more desolate, but I find it actually softens the mood. It is as if our hobbit heroes actually conjure up some coziness for themselves with these innocent diversions.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
So, you're wasting time with the internet...
(If you're here, you must be!)
So, yeah, I do topology. In fact, algebraic topology. One of the things I like about algebraic topology is that sometimes you get to draw nice pictures. OK, so I can't draw worth your trouble, but it's fun anyways. Maybe Emacs or someone will make better pictures.
One more nifty thing about the pictures you can draw in topology is that they're useful for other parts of math, too, like group theory. And this is a big deal! There are some Nice and Easy-to-Describe topological spaces that "know" how to calculate things that we can't calculate. This is part of what makes algebraic topology difficult, but also part of why it's exciting. And if we're lucky, sometimes they give us help understanding the things we can calculate. In particular, being able to describe a calculation by drawing a picture can help us lots.
That's my introduction to
... and this Batty fellow keeps intruding with things you tried to forget that you never learned because of how terribly dull your course on matrices in linear algebra was, or is...
So, yeah, I do topology. In fact, algebraic topology. One of the things I like about algebraic topology is that sometimes you get to draw nice pictures. OK, so I can't draw worth your trouble, but it's fun anyways. Maybe Emacs or someone will make better pictures.
One more nifty thing about the pictures you can draw in topology is that they're useful for other parts of math, too, like group theory. And this is a big deal! There are some Nice and Easy-to-Describe topological spaces that "know" how to calculate things that we can't calculate. This is part of what makes algebraic topology difficult, but also part of why it's exciting. And if we're lucky, sometimes they give us help understanding the things we can calculate. In particular, being able to describe a calculation by drawing a picture can help us lots.
That's my introduction to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
