Saturday, August 09, 2008

Satan's Third Suggestion: Don't Go Changin' on Me, and it Doesn't Matter Anyway

Kevin Lomax: "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven", is that it?

John Milton: Why not? I'm here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began. I've nurtured every sensation man's been inspired to have. I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him. Why? Because I never rejected him. In spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man! I'm a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.
--The Devil's Advocate

The Ten Commandments are also inherently ten criticisms of Man, as they assume he will likely do the opposite in their absence. In other words, he will worship himself, work for a predatory subprime lender to satisfy his boundless greed, lie in court, plunder innocent OB GYNs with the use of bogus science, and cheat on his dying wife. He will be John Edwards, or Satan's Advocate.

Again, being that the prince of this world never "commands," the Ten Satanic Commandments would have to come in the form of flattery. They will essentially sooth man's conscience and tell him that he is just fine the way he is. For that very reason they will forestall cognitive, emotional, and spiritual evolution, since they undermine the end of each, which is to say, wisdom, love, and the One, respectively. They will be more like ten emollients, reassurances, or encouragements that keep man an entitled, self-centered, petulant, and misosophic child forever.

Last week we discussed the first two Satanic blandishments. Today we will revisit number three, and see if it still make sense two years on. If it doesn't, I will edit it in such a way that no one will ever know.

*****
One of the purposes of this blog is to encourage serious people to take religion seriously. I was once a person who didn’t take religion seriously, although even in my antaganostic daze, I probably wouldn’t have objected to being called “spiritual,” since it’s such a bland and neutral description that essentially means anything you want it to. I have observed that most liberals feel this way. They will proudly describe themselves as spiritual, but draw a bright line at religious, as if it is an insult. Which to them it often is.

But this type of gelatinous, unstructured spirituality usually amounts to either solipsism or narcissism, because it is wholly subjective and makes no demands at all on the person. Furthermore, it usually alienates one from the very grace that is the true catalyst for change. In the absence of grace, either acknowledged or unacknowledged, man can do nothing but go around in circles. True, he might be able to expand the size of the circle, or even pretend that it doesn't exist, but he cannot enter the open spiral, being that the latter only exists because of vertical energies that transcend us.

In fact, authentic religions are frameworks for spirituality, in the same way that music theory is a framework for music. You can try to play music without such a frame -- you can be “musical” -- but with rare exceptions, you won’t be able to play much of interest. It will be a pretty vain endeavor. This is why, for example, regardless of what objection you may have to the Catholic church, it has produced more profound spiritual geniuses than the “new age” ever will. Frankly, there’s just no comparison in terms of depth, power and spiritual radiance. The new age can produce a demon such as Deepak Chopra, but it could never produce a Meister Eckhart. And Chopra is a demon precisely because he represents human evolution in the absence of vertical grace. Thus, he is more Nietzschean or even nazian than noetian.

I'm not taking a position for or against, but when you hear debates about whether or not the Ten Commandments should be displayed in schools or courthouses, you will often notice that liberals assume their typical superior tone of mockery and derision toward them -- as if some arbitrary laws thought up thousands of years ago by primitive people have any contemporary, much less universal, applicability. While they will grant that it might be bad under certain circumstances to steal (unless it is by the state) or kill (unless it is in self defense), they especially dismiss injunctions against making graven images (discussed in last week's post) or taking the name of the lord in vain. No one is going to tell a leftist what he can and cannot mock, since knee-jerk adolescent rebellion is at the core of leftism. If they can’t blaspheme, what’s left for them? Just so long as you don't mock their sacred cowpies, Obama being a steaming example.

You will also notice that no one is more literal-minded or “fundamentalist” than the leftist or atheist who rejects religion. That is, they reject only a caricature of religion that they have concocted themselves. Or perhaps, as often happens, they had a bad experience with a dysfunctional version of religion as a child, and are in perpetual revolt against it. While perfectly understandable -- in fact, to a certain extent, I was a victim of this myself -- there is no reason why it should pose a lifelong obstacle to opening oneself to the boundless depths of genuine religion.

We recently discussed how leftism (and remember, when I use that term, I’m generalizing about the deep structure of an entire philosophical attitude or temperament, not this or that particular leftist) represents an upside-down and inside-out version of Judeo-Christian metaphysics, and how it manages to invert each of the commandments. In other words, they are not just against the Ten Commandments, but (whether wittingly or unwittingly) enshrine their opposite.

The third commandment is “You shall not take the name of the lord in vain.” There are even many Christians who believe that this means nothing more than refraining from cursing. If so, what’s the point? If that were all it amounted to, then liberals might even be correct in mocking something so seemingly trivial in the overall scheme of things. Why would the Creator of the Cosmos care that liberal blogs use 12 times as much profanity as conservative ones? True, it is a marker of barbarism, stupidity, and adolescent rebellion, but those aren't capital offenses.

First of all, this commandment has something important to say about metaphysical vanity, specifically, vain and fruitless talk about God, of which there is an overabundance. Much religious talk is entirely vain, in that it serves no purpose -- it is mere “pneuma-babble” emanating from the ego, not the spirit. For example, whenever our scientistic jester speaks of "God" -- and therefore reality -- he does so in a way that is devoid of content and therefore entirely vain. As you may eventually learn, there is no point in engaging him, because it only serves the purpose of making his apparitions appear more real to him.

The omninameable One has revealed several of his names to mankind, the most universal one undoubtedly being I AM. In fact, there are certain forms of yoga that consist of nothing more than meditating on the mystery of this I AM to which we all have inexplicable access. To do so is to engage in the deepest form of vertical recollection, for this I AM is not located in the field of time. Rather, it eternally radiates through the vertical now to which humans have unique access. To dwell in the primordial I AM -- or so ham in Sanskrit -- is to reconnect with the eternal ground of being. It is anything but vain. Quite the opposite. It is simultaneously fruitful and the very source of fruit.

As I was at pains to point out in the Coonifesto, the principial truths embodied in genuinely revealed religions must be experienced, not merely thought. In other words, they cannot be thought "about" but only thought "in." One doesn't look at them but with and through them.

In fact, this is really not much different than, say, psychology, or any other interior discipline that transcends the senses. You can read all about the criteria for a depression or panic attack in the DSM, but unless you have actually experienced a panic attack, the words don’t really convey the experience. If anything, they might even convince you that you understand it because you have the words for it, but the words are merely pointers or place markers. You really haven't lived -- or perhaps died -- until you've had a good panic attack.

Especially with regard to religion and psychology, words must be analogous to bank notes that one may “cash in” for their actual experiential value. Otherwise you are simply dealing with religious counterfeiters and with spiritual “funny money” that has no value at all. It is entirely vain. When you read Meister Eckhart or Saint John of the Cross, you know that their words are backed by the full faith and credit of the First Bank of Divine Reality. When you read Deepak Chopra or Tony Robbins, you know that their words are backed by the full faith and credit of their rampant narcissism. But Gresham's law means that bad spiritual money tends to drive out good, which accounts for their vast personal fortunes. John Edwards too. If you can't tell that every word that comes out of the mouth of this vain man is counterfeit, then you are a lost soul.

Perhaps the worst way of taking the name of the Lord in vain -- and the most spiritually catastrophic for the person who does so -- is to use the name of God as a pretext to commit great evil, as do the Islamists. I’m trying to think of a worse sin, but I can’t at the moment. What the Islamists are doing is beyond evil, for they are committing evil in the name of God, thus undermining the very possibility of the good. Deepak doesn't actually murder anyone, but he does reduce man's most precious birthright into something tawdry, stupid, and evil, so he too will have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Contrary to popular understanding, these Islamist beasts of depravity are worthy of both divine wrath and our own unyielding righteous anger. True, under most circumstances it is appropriate to “hate the sin and not the sinner.” However, it is entirely legitimate to despise the sinner to the extent that he has not only completely given himself over to sin, but fully identifies with it in an implacable way. Such a person cannot be forgiven, since there is no man left to forgive.

In other words, the Islamo-nazis are not just committing evil, they are willfully identified with evil -- more, they are absolutely committed to violent overthrow of the very possibility of the good. It is our sacred duty to despise these monsters in the proportion to which we love the Good. In no way does this mirror the illegitimate, passionate, and sadistic hatred of the Islamists themselves, for holy anger is dispassionate and does not surpass the boundaries of its cause. Americans do not chop off heads for fun; they only do what is necessary to stop the evil. (Obviously, the disproportionate and intoxicated hatred of the left is not legitimate; they are addicted to hate, to such an extent that they hate what is good, true, and beautiful, even if they don't chop off heads.)

There is one additional aspect of the third commandment that I had wanted to get into, but this has already gone on rather long, and I don't really have timelessness enough to expand upon it. That is the possibility of metaphysical knowledge which is both objectively true and operative, or fruitful, in the psyche. Virtually all postmodern thought is in agreement that objective metaphysical knowledge is not possible -- that it is intrinsically “vain.” Here again we see an exact reversal of the reality, for the religious view is that human beings most definitely have access, through the uncreated intellect, to objective truth. There are eternal truths that man may not only know, but without which man couldn't know anything, and wouldn't be man.

Example?

Oh, there are so many, I don’t know where to begin. How about this one: semantics cannot be reduced to syntax. Because it can’t, language is not just a vain epiphenomenon produced by a modified primate brain, including the mathematical language that governs the physical universe, the language of DNA, the language of music, or the language of Shakespeare. Ultimately, it means that meaning is indeed meaningful and not merely a vain existential pursuit. The cosmos is not just a tale told by a tenured idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying short hours and a nice paycheck. Rather, it is a vehicle of Ultimate Meaning, as it is a lifeline tossed down from above, not an ivory tower of babbling idiots built from below, prick by prick.

More memorable quotes from The Devil's Advocate:

--Who, in their right mind Kevin, could possibly deny the twentieth century was entirely mine?
--Freedom, baby... is never having to say you're sorry.
--I only set the stage. You pull your own strings.
--Vanity, definitely my favorite sin.
--Guilt is like a bag of fuckin' bricks. All ya gotta do is set it down.
--We kill you with kindness, that's our secret.

102 Comments:

Blogger walt said...

You referred to the Cosmos as "... a vehicle of Ultimate Meaning, as it is a lifeline tossed down from a above ..."

Interesting, how differently various people think about meaning.

I was reading about the history of the caduceus, the symbol of medicine, showing two serpents entwined around a staff, with a dove sitting atop it. This was originally the mythological "staff of Hermes." It symbolized the outward and inward movement in all things, reconciled by a third thing, the dove. It was the descent, or "presence" of the dove that -----> meaning to the other two opposing forces.

Ha-ha: different from the way we "moderns" think about such things, eh? As you mentioned, what difference could it make what ancient savages thought!?

Another hint along these lines was when you recently wrote:
. . . a human being is nothing other than a "lens" where the vertical "collides" with the horizontal in the most intense way.

8/09/2008 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

You really haven't lived -- or perhaps died -- until you've had a good panic attack.


That's a pretty close description.

:o)

8/09/2008 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said...

"He will be John Edwards"

Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow!

8/09/2008 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

As I have said, I have no objection to people who wish to argue with our scientistic jester. But I just read a wise caveat at Just Thomism that applies:

"I doubt that they will be seen as anything other than nonsense by the Dawkins crowd. Trying to explain the truth of the soul to them would be like trying to explain polymer chemistry to a fifteenth century alchemist, or etiquette to the average high-school loudmouth jerk. There is simply too much prerequisite knowledge to make up for.

"There is also a problem of disposition. In my experience, the best spoken theists understand the best atheist arguments very well, and present them carefully and faithfully; but I have never met an atheist who understood the best theist arguments carefully and correctly. Never.

"If you have the calling to speak to the Dawkins crowd, you must answer the call, but remember that the full truth is always revealed only to relatively few who seek truth and wisdom faithfully and as disciples of the great masters. The Dawkinses have always been with us. Five years from now they will be replaced by some new fad that feeds on death. They are nothing more or less than the world which is already passing away. At times it seems clear that they don’t even want to refute other arguments, they just want to suck people into an argument that itself will drag everyone down to death. They want us to speak like them: at one time ironic, condescending, and spiteful, and at another time with a false modesty that feeds on ignorance, tepidity, sloth, and death."

Ho!

8/09/2008 10:03:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"The cosmos is not just a tale told by a tenured idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying short hours and a nice paycheck. Rather, it is a vehicle of Ultimate Meaning, as it is a lifeline tossed down from above, not a ivory tower of babbling idiots built from below, prick by prick."

Oh my... few things nail more truths to the point better than a well aimed thrust of sharpened humOr.

8/09/2008 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Wise words from Thomist. I'll try to remember that next time.

Some days, obviously, I just have too much procrastination on my hands :)

8/09/2008 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"They are nothing more or less than the world which is already passing away. At times it seems clear that they don’t even want to refute other arguments, they just want to suck people into an argument that itself will drag everyone down to death."

You know, I did finally realize that in the go around with Inte... 1? 2? yrs ago. But there is part of me that thinks I might just find their hidden vertical inflation valve with... one... more... reply. I recognize it is 99.9% unlikely, but that .01% chance looks like the Eisenhower tunnel to a flogger.

Another part, is that they give me a chance to think on things through a perspective I wouldn't normally use. I am however finding that less and less, and getting more and more bored, and sharp, in replying to them.

Especially with the aninnies who"... want us to speak like them: at one time ironic, condescending, and spiteful, and at another time with a false modesty that feeds on ignorance, tepidity, sloth, and death."

There's enough reactive combativness in me to not want to see their splats go unanswered, but more and more I find myself prefering to see things from Chris's perspective, rather than Chico's. Still... gotta go with Britt's too, "Nobody throws me my own guns and says ride on."

I mean, a Defender's gotta defend, afterall.

8/09/2008 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Van, yes - exactly. I know better, but some days...

8/09/2008 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

As I said, I have no objection to the back and forth, but one should at least appreciate the meta-lesson of how impenetrable the scientistic mind is to the light. Literally nothing gets through. Or, if it does, it is only because they have opened themselves to the grace.

8/09/2008 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger erasmus said...

Any given question can always be answered Mu.

8/09/2008 11:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

With Johnnie Cochran dead and Edwards out of the picture, I wonder who Obama will nominate for AG. Jackie Chiles?

8/09/2008 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Cuz said "I wonder who Obama will nominate for AG. Jackie Chiles?"

That... or sticking with gross and wanton indifference...

...Hillary.

8/09/2008 12:35:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

Bob: "But this type of gelatinous, unstructured spirituality usually amounts to either solipsism or narcissism, because it is wholly subjective and makes no demands at all on the person."

C. S. Lewis: "The Pantheist's God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you."

8/09/2008 03:35:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

Re the Thomism quote: Ho, indeed! That was the most bracing blast of cold hard truth I've felt in a while.... very refreshing.

8/09/2008 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Some people want to be coddled. Some prefer the cold hard blast. I've always been in the latter camp.

8/09/2008 03:40:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

There are some people by whom it is a privilege to be slapped around. Woe to us if that were ever not the case!

8/09/2008 03:43:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Bob - As the Spirit moves, I would love your take on the Tower of Babel sometime. I sense some new relevance to today's world, but am having a tough time getting at it.

BTW - The NoMo's and friends are headed out to Macbeth this eve. Should be a treat! Wish the 'coons could all be there.

8/09/2008 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8/09/2008 04:52:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Cuz,

Wha-da-ya-mean Edwards is out of the picture? I just saw him on a bunch of magazines today when I went to get groceries.

8/09/2008 04:55:00 PM  
Blogger Sal said...

Nomo-
I was just reading an essay by Umberto Eco on that called "Languages in Paradise' and wondering what Bob would have to say about it.
Need to go back and re-read it 2-3 more times, to make sure I understood it.

Have an enjoyable evening at the Scottish Play.

8/09/2008 05:03:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gagdad Bob said...
Some people want to be coddled. Some prefer the cold hard blast. I've always been in the latter camp.

Aye! Can't get to the mountaintop swimmin' in the swamp.

8/09/2008 08:06:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Just Thomism is just wise! :^)

8/09/2008 08:08:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

So, basically, it's good to remember that when we engage Darwinists they only understand the souless argument.
Their entire theory is based on soulessness, that is, only materialism, which is why they can never understand, let alone experience and realize what we talk about here.

8/09/2008 08:33:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Whoa. I googled "Macbeth Obama" and stumbled upon this gem. Enjoy!

8/09/2008 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Voltron said...

"You really haven't lived -- or perhaps died -- until you've had a good panic attack."

Been there!

I think I stumbled onto the key though, The last panic attack I had was about 8 years ago. I was curled up on the floor in the fetal position, shaking and barely able to breathe and I thought to myself, "Jesus I can't live like this. If this is all I have to look forward to, take me now." And I meant it.

Right then a wave of calm and peace washed over me and I immediately fell asleep right there on the floor. It was the most relaxing peaceful sleep I've EVER had.

The attacks never came back. I still get a small twinge on rare occaisions, but no major attacks anymore.

A secularist might say it was me losing my fear of death, but a Christian would probably say it's because I called out to Christ.

Probably a little of both. I'm not a particularly pious person, nor am I a practicing Christian, but my inner convictions are probably what gave me the strength to let go so completely.

8/09/2008 11:20:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

Bob,

It is often remarked how multi-directional each post is, referring to all manner of things. In this post you included, without any particular fanfare, a reference to a yoga practice described as "To dwell in the primordial I AM..."

Not knowing the exact description, I attempted to incorporate this into my morning routine.

Had this effect: !

Gave new meaning to the phrase "suspended as if by a thread from above."

Thanks for the hint!

8/10/2008 05:17:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Aw, my post disappeared!

I could just re-quote your post and drink it in again, but I won't waste cyberspace.

Suffice it to say, that your link was absolutely right. Conversation is barely possible between people who know this is true, and people who don't recognize the truth.

The trouble with people who reject revelation as old and fusty and irrelevant, is that we are then left to live under the tyranny of their authority--their gut. I prefer divine revelation, thanks.

8/10/2008 07:45:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Bob, what do you think of the conclusions reached here, about which direction the conversation should (can) go?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNkMDM3OTNhNThlYTZlNDAyYmY3ZWI5NGY0MzA1NmM=&w=MA==

8/10/2008 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I just saw Batman Begins on TV the other day, and enjoyed it very much. It was full of interesting themes, but one of the central ones was that Wayne was trained to be "more than a man."

But there are two ways to be a "superman" who is beyond good and evil, the divine way of theosis or the Nietzschean way of the Joker. I'll have to watch the new one to see if that theme is further explored....

Another way of saying it is that in order to be a man, one must be more than a man (i.e., transcend), or conversely, to deny transcendence, as does the joker, turns man into a monster. Every time.

8/10/2008 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish you would clarify what is wrong with Deepak Chopra. My repeated analyses of his writing fail to yield any doctrines counter to yours, Bob.

1. God is real
2. People can/should connect with God.
3. The denial of God is bad.

These are your, and Chopras, core tenets. There is alot of ideological fluff and terminology surrounding both doctrines, but essentially there you have it.

If Chopra is a demon, how can you not be one also?

That is the question.

8/10/2008 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Here is an example of Deepak's latest drivel.

That he is demonic is self-evident. Not to mention profoundly ignorant.

Respectfully, to be charitable, you seem to be an idiot. After all, the Islamists also believe that:

1. God is real
2. People can/should connect with God.
3. The denial of God is bad.

8/10/2008 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gagdad Bob said...
I just saw Batman Begins on TV the other day, and enjoyed it very much. It was full of interesting themes, but one of the central ones was that Wayne was trained to be "more than a man."

I concur about Batman Begins. That is the version of Batman that Frank Miller made famous.

I haven't seen the new one yet, but Dirty Harry has a lot of good things to say about it:

Batman

It should also be no surprise that Batman Dark Knight, a conservative movie, has shattered box office records. :^)

8/10/2008 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

I was wondering more about the "how to talk to relativists" part. In light of the Just Thomism post.

8/10/2008 11:09:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"Conservatives have two very good reasons not to shy away from moralistic and religious pictures: First, they believe in them; second, so do many of the people who have traditionally formed part of the conservative coalition. But that fact of history guarantees nothing about the future, and “moral relativism” is the regnant doctrine among the most important shapers of popular opinion: Hollywood, the music industry, the media, and the otherwise übercool.

The world is full of those in thrall to the übercool. These people tend to be skeptical of moral absolutes. They tend to have nowhere to go of a bright Sunday morn when the birds sing sweet and the carillon doth chime. And they tend to say: “I’m sorry, but I don’t see the rules your way. I don’t think your 18th-century professor got it right. Or your 13th-century monk. Or your very dead Greeks and your even deader Hebrews. Of this, at least, I feel sure. And I feel pretty sure that your rules are silly and old-fashioned, and can’t be proved unless you assume part of what it is you’re trying to prove. And I’d like you to shut up now, because I’m going to close my eyes and listen to my iPod.”

Instead of telling them to go to church or review their Kant, we may find it more effective to say: “Sure, no rules, you win. Go to sleep now. But don’t forget that you have preferences about what you see when you wake up.” These words are admittedly no reason to do what we should like to call “moral”; but if deployed the right way, they point very clearly to the absence of any reason to do what we should like to call “immoral.” And we might be surprised how far that can go."

8/10/2008 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Sussanah:
Well, I wouldn't recommend my method.
Not unless you are prepared for them not to ever contact you again.

Then again, it is pretty peaceful around here...:^)

8/10/2008 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Let's put it this way, anonymous. Either the United States is a demonic, aggressive, expansionist, imperialistic, greedy nation that deserves to be hated; or Deepak is demonic for thinking so. I suppose one could just say that he is an illiterate ignoramus, but the fact that he deploys his idiocy in the name of God elevates it to the status of the demonic.

8/10/2008 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

LOL, Ben! I guess neither approach is highly "evangelical."

8/10/2008 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Talk to relativists by getting them to articulate their first principles, which will always be inconsistent, incoherent, and self-refuting.

8/10/2008 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

And speaking of being a man -- or, perhaps,
less
than a man -- your old friends are full of handy tips.

8/10/2008 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I don't know if I could read that. One can only cringe for so long.

8/10/2008 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Or, as Lileks wrote the other day:

"It’s hilarious, really –- the culture touts makeup for men and the concept of “boy beauty” as applied to Pete Frickin’ Wentz, and then wonders where the "real men” have gone. It’s like putting an atonal opera on the stereo, turning it up to 10 and wondering where all the music lovers went. It’s not that they vanished; it’s just that they don’t want to hang around with you anymore."

8/10/2008 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Ha ha! There were some funny comments there at Dr. Helen's, Walt. However, after the femi-men arrived it did get wince-inducing.

And from the WIE page:
"What is authentic masculinity today?"

Heh! If you hafta ask...

8/10/2008 11:52:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin Dupree said...

Sometimes I think WIE is only nice to Bob to protect them from me.

8/10/2008 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

From the Lileks link:
"The lunchpail jobs have been supplemented by office jobs now, where most guys know enough to run any remark past their own inner “real men” filter, and if that brute laughs, keep it to yourself or close the door."

Ha ha! I knew there was a name for that. You know, sometimes I have some technical problems (ie, I can't manage to find the switch for my inner real man filter).

I almost envy Skully (okay, I do), 'cause he doesn't even have an inner real man filter.

8/10/2008 12:05:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

In retrospect, the Navy had a good therapy program for real men.

For instance, my main job, huntin' submarines with all kinds of electronic gear while controlling a helo or fixed-wing aircraft who were working with me n' the ship wasn't the most manly job onboard (that was reserved for Gunners Mates, Bos'n Mates, and Engineers).

However, the therapy part: running around with loaded weapons n' fightin' fires n' stuff more than made up for it. :^)

8/10/2008 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

Ben,

What was important was that you sere sensitive to the needs of the Gunners Mates, Bos'n Mates, and Engineers.

8/10/2008 12:17:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I saw that Dr. Helen article the other day. The sad thing is, I'm pretty sure "sitzpinkler" used to be a derogatory term. These days, it's held up (by Euro women) as the ideal.

8/10/2008 12:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

Hey Cuz-
That, and it's a novelty for them to talk to real men.

Of course, they ain't ready for you, but Bob is definitely progress in the "innerview a real guy" department.

8/10/2008 12:19:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tanks Walt...I think. Never really thought of it that way before. LOL!

8/10/2008 12:21:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

BTW, I don't recommend runnin' around the house with a loaded weapon.

You should do that outside.
Just a friendly safety tip.

8/10/2008 12:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

Unless yer under attack.

8/10/2008 12:24:00 PM  
OpenID kaffepaus said...

From the Dr Helen post:
”In Sweden, little boys are given dolls to play with and girls are given tractors.”

I know this is true because my girlfriend’s parents did that to her two year older brother in the early 80ies, and even more p.c., they gave him a colored girl doll. He gladly took the doll and played with it on the floor – the doll was a truck and he was steering it around “wrooom, wrooom”!

Parents just laughed and let the boy be just a boy. never tried anything like that again. Boy turned out very good in the end.

/Johan

8/10/2008 01:06:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

On the movie front, David Zucker's
'An American Carol' sound promising.

Hee Hee, da Libs be already whining about it & it's not out until Oct.

8/10/2008 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Johan-
Ha ha! Smart boy! :^)

8/10/2008 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Are religious experiences "the same" and coming from "the same source"?

No, beware the demonic pentecost

Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future

8/10/2008 01:22:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Ximeze-
Aye! Any flick that ridicules the left in general and Michael Moore in particular is a must see.

8/10/2008 01:29:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ximeze,
I hadn't heard of that one yet. It sounds funny, though.

I'm looking forward to the next Coen Bros. movie, "Burn After reading," due out in a few weeks.

8/10/2008 01:42:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

"An Iranian swimmer pulled out of the Olympic Games men's 100m breaststroke heats on Saturday, just minutes before he was due to compete against an Israeli rival."

So, are cooties the problem or boy beauty is at stake if'n da Jooooo gets to the wall first?

These people are truly insane. Anyone not completely mad already is sure to be made so, just by trying to make sense of this crap.

8/10/2008 02:04:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ximeze, if only dealing with Islamofascists were as simple as arresting their Supreme Being...

8/10/2008 02:13:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Very sad to hear about the death of Isaac Hayes, one of the Soul Greats. Not in the very tippy top tier, but definitely second tier. I will be playing this in his honor come beer o'clock. It's his best compilation, and incredibly cheap. RIS.

8/10/2008 02:41:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

BTW, the top tier soul artists are, in alphabetical order:

James Brown (through about 1975)
Ray Charles (through maybe 1969)
Aretha (through the mid 1970s)
Marvin Gaye
Al Green
Curtis Mayfied
O'Jays
Smokey Robinson
Spinners
Staple Singers
Temptations
Jackie Wilson

Some would say Otis Redding, but I've just never been that into him with the exception of a few songs. Also Sam Cooke, but in my opinion, the majority of his work is kind of pop and not soul.

Other second tier greats would include

Tyrone Davis
Earth Wind & Fire
Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes
Five Stairsteps
Isley Brothers
Ben E. King
Gladys Knight
Sly & the Family Stone
Jr. Walker
Bill Withers
Bobby Womack

8/10/2008 02:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see what the problem is, Bob. You seem to conflate talking politics with religious ideology.

Deepak has a different political view from yours; however, not a very different spiritual one from yours.

What people say..sigh. What does Deepak actually do? What do you, Bob, acually do? Probably about 20% of your attention goes to bathing, grooming and eating, maybe 25% to writing, another 10% to driving around, etc. Washing dishes, making love, another 5 and 10%, respectivily. Sleep, another 40%.

A behavioral study of you both may not yield any significant differences. You both emit a lot of sound and fury, but what does it actually boot?

Clarify.

8/10/2008 04:28:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I see your point. Truth, lies, what's the difference, so long as we spend the same amount of time bathing, grooming and eating? To be honest, I'd never thought of it that way until you brought it to my attention. Thank you. Thank you very much. You've given me food for thought.

8/10/2008 04:38:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Anon lack of basic reasoning skills (as in, none) is the result of reading too much Deepak.

8/10/2008 04:56:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Anon,

Where do you derive your uncanny perception?

Please clarify.

8/10/2008 05:18:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

Bob, your life-long devotion to baseball and athletics has paid off!

Why, even Anon realizes you give it 110% every day!

8/10/2008 05:41:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Just part of being "more than a man."

8/10/2008 05:45:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Bob,

Perhaps you could warn the anonymous bliss-ninnies who wish to conflate you with Deeprock (and will go through any mental contortion to do so in order to remain in la-la-land) when you are going to mention Deeprock in a post. That way they can skip over that day to avert the trauma and all will be well with the world.

Imagine........a Western Civilization FULL of enlightened Deeprock Chakras...... buh bye.

8/10/2008 05:47:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

He forgot wiping, that adds another 2%

8/10/2008 05:49:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

To be honest, 0% goes to washing dishes... we have kind of a traditional thing going on. Mrs. G. pretends to clean the house, and I pretend to do the upkeep. Bathing, grooming and eating, maybe 5%, since I do these things at the same time. Writing... never thought about it, but it might actually be around 10%. Sleep is around seven hours, whatever that works out to. But making love at 10% -- he's way off. That's only what, 2.5 hours a day?

8/10/2008 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

If you're not, er, "busy" sometime, have you read works by Raimon Pannikar? I keep bumping into his name, and noticed he wrote the foreward to The Cave of the Heart: The Life of Swami Abhishiktananda, which I believe you were reading.

8/10/2008 06:29:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I hear ya, but at least from what I've read -- which may be only a book or two -- his stuff is all rather dry, academic, and not a little pompous.

8/10/2008 06:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, forget Deepak. Lets talk about Sakyong Mipham. I suppose you'd have something negative to say about him, too.

8/10/2008 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

What, anon? Throwin' Deepkimchee under the anonybus already?

Not very, um..."quantive" of you.

8/10/2008 07:29:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Ben:

Is it the Chicken or the Egg?

I'm think'n the basic reasoning skills must have been inoperative before Deepak, otherwise Anon would have known at a glance what a cheesebag the D is.

****************
"but what does it actually boot?"

Ok, English may be my third language in learning order, but it's usually considered my most fluent. Can any of you native speakers 'splain this phrase to me?

8/10/2008 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"What does it boot?"

Good point, Ximeze. And Anon is the one that wants Bob to clarify.

8/10/2008 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

'what does it actually boot'?

OS2 Warp?

8/10/2008 08:45:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Just catching up on all the doings before closing out this horrible, bad no good rotten day from hell (how lucky am I, that I can call - and actually have felt like - a sequence of trivial frustrations and mishaps could rank as a 'rotten day from hell' - to all those from the Founders to the Soldiers thanks!).

Hadn't heard to the movie 'An American Carol' before, good article on it here though. And about Batman, my brother sent me this one a week or so ago, What Bush and Batman Have in Common by Andrew Klavan.

It's a funny thing about Truth, it shows up, even, and often especially, when you don't want it to. The Left, when they're making movies they want to make a statement, they come out as preachy, stilted, inaccurate drivel - and bombs at the box office, as the last string of 'War on Terror' message movies have.

But when they focus on timeless truths (and super-hero, historical or Sci-Fi are the best and nearly the only movies (and books) that do so, via their mythical flavoring), you end up seeing far more worthwhile insights to our time, than the junkie flick they intend to do it with!

When the left wants to make a message movie of how they they want people to think things are - true or not - they selectively arrange out of context facts, and end up with a revisionist history of the present, that just doesn't click with people who (and apparently the Left doesn't realize it) but are actually living in, and familiar with, the present. But when they tell a classic mythic hero vs. villain tale, they end up hip deep in Truth, and current events are easily read into them. Aristotle put it as something along the lines of, the imaginative isn't '...limited to what has actually happened, and poetically depicts things in their universal character. And, therefore, "poetry is more philosophical and more elevated..."

Give me Harry Potter, Batman (the last two anyway), Star Wars, The 300... over the 'important' movies, any day of the week.

8/10/2008 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Deepak's website attacks the US as evil and corrupt, but defends China. Now that's enlightenment! More illiteracy from the land of Deepak:

"Most Western TV Channels and the western media are making a big hue and cry and polluting the airwaves by trying to criticize China with talk about pollution, security, lack of freedom, and whatnot.

"By doing so they only put me off. Why the stepmotherly treatment for China? Is it because China does not toe their line? I would say just that it's stupidity, ignorance, foolishness, and pure dumbness....

"I have seen rats crossing the streets of New York, flies floating in soups in Canada, garbage piles in Manhattan and more. Are they squeaky clean? Nope. All is not well even in heaven. So why this campaign against China alone? What can't the West stand about China?"

8/10/2008 09:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Dusty said...

Raimondo does have a kind of dry self repeating style of writing. Back when I was reading about Abhish's influences and friends in The Cave of the Heart, Raimondo's "Hidden Christ of Hinduism" caught my eye as "might be a good companion book" to go along with the Bio. Well, I only got maybe a fourth of a way through before I realized that I hadn't learned anything I didn't already know, and his slow delivery of information and repeating style kind of gave me the impression that he just liked the academic process instead of thinking and getting to the point.

After reading Schuon, I have a hard time cultivating patience for the mosey around type of intellectuals. Come about a week after reading just 10 to 20 pages of Schuon, it really feels as though I I've read whole book. He just turns my brain inside out, or unfolds it, or something like that.

Though, I get the impression from Abhish's "Guru and Disciple" that he wasn't intellectual enough for my taste. But, I guess that's just my prejudice. I'm sure glad he wrote the story down.


...


On another topic, the Joker is, I think, a perfect personification of transcendent evil. That is, the act of rejecting transcendence a priori at the same time downwardly transforms that person an inverted reflection of the above saving grace. True transcendent evil is a faceless force until given temporary one by an earthly personality. Notice that the joker in Dark night is in truth a faceless terror all through out. He really has no personal history on record: no name; his cloths are self-made; the past that he does reveal turns out to be contradiction and lies; and even the face that we do see is painted in the seemingly Jungian style inverted archetype of the mad clown. There's nothing there but a trail of violence and disaster. Whence did he come? Where did he go?

He is chaos personified, and the only connection that he does have with grace is a masochistic-like dependency on the archetypal hero who opposes his will. Even the darkest of nights, night within night, evil for evil sake, must necessarily maintain contact with the light, or else I suppose there would exist an absolute hell, which is strictly impossible unless God chose to suffer it himself. But if God is Good, he would choose eternal delight, and not an eternal dark night.

It's one of the few movies that I would pay to see, given that the majority of movies now days are stupid and lacking in depth. I guess if history was a picture show, it would probably be alot of the same. Maybe that's why forgetting is an important part of the evolutionary process. All of the vanity would weigh us down.

"it's not about the money, it's about sending a message," (joker) i.e., bi-direction.

(Actually, Jung's clown is one of my most powerful sub-personalities, besides the titans, which are personified elemental forces. I think those are deeper. It's going to be cool to watch the clown bloom into a sane personality over the next ten years; cool to find out who he is in essence. It's a blessing, I think. Or at least I'm converting curse into blessing.)

8/10/2008 09:44:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Must be caused by the brain atrophy when you live your life as an out of body experience.

8/10/2008 09:47:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Deeprock that is, not you Dusty

8/10/2008 09:49:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Dusty:

Very good. Cooncur all the way around.

8/11/2008 06:14:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Speaking of Deepak, it seems like his 'out of body experience' is that he lives continually in a symmetric world (except when it comes to piling on money.) But I think that's his goal anyway, to live entirely in a symmetric world, a la 'Imagine'?

I for one, can imagine a world without Deepak. Can he?

Had an interesting side note about the symmetric/asymmetric. When I was in WV, trying to pray at night was difficult. When one prays, at least in the traditional way (which is more than simply tapping into the God-genie) one immediately moves towards symmetric thinking. It takes practice to square one's self in between the symmetric and asymmetric, but when in a new environment (like in the woods at night with a candle) it is extremely difficult. What's interesting about this is that this 'problem' is actually a bonus when it comes to environments which are designed for worship - that is, churches, sepulchers, shrines, etc. When one prays the symmetric drift makes one 'connect' more firmly with the place of prayer.

Just a thought.

8/11/2008 06:16:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Susannah - That National Review article is basically what I said before, in the discussion here. When I talk about "psychopathic" individuals, I'm talking about the Joker.

And he agrees with my prescription for dealing with Jokers: "Let me end on a personal note. I hate vandals. My friends ask what makes me a conservative, and sometimes I wonder myself, but there is an answer, and it’s that I hate vandals. The problem with vandals is not that they are wrong about a conceptual matter. The problem is that they smash beautiful things. They couldn’t care less about your rules or your God or your conception of the good. You have to stop them with tools that work."

8/11/2008 06:38:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

That sentiment itself is fine as far as it goes, the problem is that it can't go very far without a Truth being of One hierarchical nature, and the mind perceiving it being animated by a non-deterministic soul. And yes, it does matter very much whether or not you venture to say whether or not you think you have Free Will. Once you venture into the 'game', not recognizing and asserting the self evident truth that you do, is to yield to those who wish to claim they don't, and those who claim they don't, will reduce and eventually destroy any conception of the Beautiful - to say nothing of the Good and the True.

8/11/2008 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Van - "That sentiment itself is fine as far as it goes, the problem is that it can't go very far without a Truth being of One hierarchical nature..."

I think there's an objective reality out there, and we're all interacting with it. I'm no solipsist. So, given that, I think we can come to some agreements about what we should do - at least, with the non-psychopathic types. And as I said, I'm fine with us non-psycho types banding up against the 'Jokers'.

"...and the mind perceiving it being animated by a non-deterministic soul. And yes, it does matter very much whether or not you venture to say whether or not you think you have Free Will."

And I've said that I do think I have free will, for any and all practical purposes. Whether I have it in a mystic sense isn't so important to me, as I'm a practical guy.

8/11/2008 09:53:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Ray said "I think there's an objective reality out there, and we're all interacting with it."

Check...

"And I've said that I do think I have free will, for any and all practical purposes."

eh... o k... check...

"Whether I have it in a mystic sense isn't so important to me, as I'm a practical guy."

Bweep! Bweep! Bweep! Euphemistic deal buster! Abort! Raise Shields! No agreement established! Repeat - no agreement established, quary has attempted a feint and flanking maneuver, remain at battle stations!

(dunno... sounded good a minute ago)

Ray, calling it a 'mystic sense' is nothing more than trying to say "I'm so determined in my 'thoughts', that I can't see or recognize the puppet strings, so I'll call it 'free will'"

As I've said before, Free Will doesn't require a 'mystic' source (see Objectivism), only an acknowledgment that it exists, and we don't have an explanation for it. It doesn't commit you to mystic or religious explanations. Although I think it'd be wise to explore those possibilities, they are in no way required, you can keep your secular side intact - but not your deterministic positions.

"I'm a practical guy."

Usually can be read "Pragmatic", which is spelled 'non-principled', and usually anti-principled, and also utterly opposed to an objective grasp of reality, and of course, the rest follows pronto.

8/11/2008 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Van - Engineers in general are very practical people. The vast majority are also very principled. Even if you were right that people who claimed to be 'practical' often were unprincipled... what would that have to do with what I'm saying unless you established that I were unprincipled? How about addressing what I write and not what you wish I'd written?

Speaking of which: Ray, calling it a 'mystic sense' is nothing more than trying to say "I'm so determined in my 'thoughts', that I can't see or recognize the puppet strings, so I'll call it 'free will'"

Nope. That's not what I've said. Indeed, I've said things like "There are a whole lot of things we don't understand about humans, but that's not the same thing as it being certain that those things can't be understood." That's what I mean by "mystic" explanations, nor have I been unclear about this.

8/11/2008 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Engineers in general are very practical people. The vast majority are also very principled."

Oh... come on ray, what a cheap equivocation... not even you could honestly confuse either meaning of 'practical' or 'principled' with the context I was using them in.

The rest is just a pure whiffle ball. We've been over it, catch up, update it, or forget it.

"How about addressing what I write and not what you wish I'd written?"

How about learning what the philosophical principles behind what you write, actually are and mean? Then maybe you'll write something that has some meaning, and isn't forever missing the point.

8/11/2008 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Van - How about learning what the philosophical principles behind what you write, actually are and mean?

Half the time we're arguing about whether those principles actually mean what you claim they mean. The other half of the time we're arguing about whether I actually hold the philosophical positions you claim I hold. :-/

8/11/2008 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"Half the time we're arguing about whether those principles actually mean what you claim they mean. The other half of the time we're arguing about whether I actually hold the philosophical positions you claim I hold."

Ray, it feels that way, because you are trying to have it both ways. You are trying to lay hold of your preferred aspects of Determinism and Free Will at the same time, by diluting both and claiming the contradictions can no longer be found.

Doesn't work, won't work, never has, never will.

:-/

8/11/2008 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger erasmus said...

Van said:

"You are trying to lay hold of your preferred aspects of Determinism and Free Will at the same time, by diluting both and claiming the contradictions can no longer be found."

I just call Ray's position "random determinism". Although incoherent, it has a nice ring to it.

Although to be fair to Ray, his position also includes chaos theory (which I'm lumping into determinism in the catch-phrase) and semi-randomness (which I'm also lumping into determism in the catch-phrase). Quantum Mechanics is falling under the random portion of the catch-phrase.

8/11/2008 01:29:00 PM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Van - you are trying to have it both ways

People have said the same thing about free will and divine foreknowledge. Looked at from the right perspective - a perspective hard to express in English - the 'contradiction' goes away.

8/11/2008 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Erasmus said "I just call Ray's position "random determinism". Although incoherent, it has a nice ring to it. "

I think Rayndum has a nice ring to it.

8/11/2008 04:16:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ray said "People have said the same thing about free will and divine foreknowledge."

People have also said the same thing about the earth or the sun being the center of the solar system. It could be legitimately argued in a pre-Galileon society, but loses its legitimacy afterwards.

Free Will could be argued ... sorta legitimately... pre-modernity. Prior to industrialism, for the majority of human kind, their unchanging daily routines and mental capacity could be perceived from a distance as not requiring or exhibiting much more than that of cattle to get through their days. Post Enlightenment... not so much. Hume was about the last philosophically aware person that could semi-legitimately get away with the error, but the cover's been blown long since. Rousseau was a major step backwards and downwards, and though kant, hegel, marx & more are waiting for you in the basement, you won't find any natural light there, only artificial.

Goes well with their artificial intelligence.

It IS. You Are. You know IT.

And you can deny it.

That goes beyond the ability of the of mechanics, silicon or synaptic.

There is a You in You Ray. Face it. Get over it. You can still deny God all you want - it's your choice, and its self initiated... just don't bother trying to blame it on your environment or indigestion.

8/11/2008 04:17:00 PM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Van - And so we loop around again. :-/

You'll grant me permission to believe that free will doesn't have "mystic or religious explanations." But I must believe that "we don't have an explanation for it." If I think that we have even some outlines of such an explanation, I must automatically stop believing in free will.

Van: You don't believe in free will!

Me: Yeah, I do, and I even think I have the beginnings of an understanding of how it's composed.

Van: You don't believe in free will!

8/12/2008 05:44:00 AM  
Blogger erasmus said...

Ray says:

"Yeah, I do, and I even think I have the beginnings of an understanding of how it's composed."

Please, do tell. I'm betting that it involves quantum mechanics.

8/12/2008 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger erasmus said...

Ray also says:

"I must believe that "we don't have an explanation for it." If I think that we have even some outlines of such an explanation, I must automatically stop believing in free will."

Ray, your thought process is absolutely fascinating.

I'm adding this post to my list of "Ray's Greatist Hits".

Free Will = Schrodinger's Cat

8/12/2008 07:50:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Erasmus - It's actually Van's thought process that you find so absorbing. Seeing as I was quoting him and all...

8/12/2008 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger erasmus said...

It's hard to tell who's quoting who from where here.

Van, is your position that Free Will = Schrodinger's Cat?

8/12/2008 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Erasmus said “Van, is your position that Free Will = Schrodinger's Cat?”

No, Ray just has a little bit of a problem with context and equivocation.

Actually, I lean more towards Schrodinger's Dog theory. Schrodinger's Dog theory states that no matter what state Ray predicts the cat to be in, alive or dead, by the time he checks he'll find that the dog has already swallowed it.

Let me give it another shot. Ray, if you believe that your actions and choices are determined by,
A - environment
B - genes
C - quantum roulette

Then what you believe in is determinism and hence not free will.

If you'd like to imagine you've solved the secret of consciousness in general and free will in particular, well then, if your theory amounts to a derivation of mechanics, then you need to hunt some more because you're still stuck on the determimystic square. If your theory amounts to somehow kicking off a process which fires up a conscious force of self aware (not just impressive calculations & responses, but Awareness) and self initiating action, unencumbered by or dependent upon 'outside' constraints for its decisions, well then congratulations, I wish you well. Perhaps God won't enforce any plagiarism penalties or patent violations.

8/12/2008 10:12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home