Thursday, November 18, 2010

Living in the Shadows of What Needn't Be

"Before I draw nearer to that headstone to which you point," said Bob, "answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of things that only may be?"

Still, Petey pointed in silence, downward to the grave by which it stood.

"The course of our lives will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead," offered Bob. "But if those courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me!"

While no form of leftism, materialism, scientism, or secularism is to be taken intellectually (let alone spiritually) seriously, I do take seriously orthodox spiritual views that clash with mine.

The reason for this is that no form of materialism, whether explicit or implicit, is sufficient to account for the richness, depth, and complexity of the world, and can never result in the metacosmic unity even scientists presume to exist. On the other hand, if the other guy has a plausible alternate explanation of spiritual unity, then that needs to be given its due, since there cannot be two unities. Either one of them is wrong, or else one can be assimilated into the other.

This is why I spend so much time pondering the traditionalist view that terrestrial perfection -- which is to say, unity -- lies in the past, and that time is an ultimately degenerative process. This goes directly against my intuitive sense that time is ultimately progressive, even though from within time, things are always simultaneously getting worse and better, so it's understandable that some people see through the half empty glass darkly.

It's very much analogous to the free market, which, at any given moment, will appear to create "problems" such as "income inequality." But if one tries to force incomes to be more equal -- to "spread the wealth around" -- it just results in less wealth, productivity, and affluence for the system as a whole.

Now, a lot of puzzling and even startling things happen within time -- i.e., apparent ontological discontinuities -- that I believe cannot be sufficiently (i.e., in a way that satisfies our total intellect) explained by either science or by tradition, but only by a higher synthesis of the two, which is what I attempted to do in the Coonifesto.

You might say that the vertical is One, the horizontal is two, and man is the higher third that unites them; or, in the Laosy absurcular logic of Taoism, The Tao gives birth to One / One gives birth to Two / Two gives birth to Three / Three gives birth to all things. So the Three and One are really two sides of the same mata-reality beyond being.

Speaking of those discontinuities, there is not, nor will there ever be, any scientific explanation of the phenomenon of life itself, nor of human consciousness. These are well beyond the limits of what materialistic science can deal with. Obviously, human consciousness explains science, not vice versa. Likewise, language and reason explain natural selection, not the converse. If evolution were the cause of language, then the truth of evolution could not be known. This is axiomatic.

I think we can stipulate that the world is either headed toward apocalypse or unity. If time is progressive, then history represents an arc of salvolution that will result in the reunification of the world, after our 50,000 year journey out of Africa and into the prismhouse of time and cultural diversification.

If this reunification -- i.e., higher synthetic unity -- does not occur, then I agree with the traditionalists that mankind cannot be sustained, and that we are headed toward some sort of disaster foretold in all of the world's mythologies -- a disaster that falls under the heading of "apocalypse." No one knows the time, the hour, or the details, but it will be nasty. Sort of like the fantasies of the global warming hysterics, only in reality.

The question is, does history have an expiration date, or does it have a way to "renew" and regenerate itself? There are many ways to look at this question. The Christian view would be that history essentially reached its inevitable nadir long ago, which is why God decided to take things into his own hands and jump down into his creation so as to reverse its downward course. Absent having done so, history would have continued winding down into chaos and barbarism. While humans may have still existed, it would be in a kind of spiritual darkness that we can scarcely conceive.

Actually, we don't really have to look far to perceive the shadow of this darkness, for it not only exists within ourselves, but pervades certain precincts of the present world untouched by the Judeo-Christian TimeLifeStream, perhaps most visibly in the Islamist death cult and the necropolis of the psychospiritual left, both of which are a kind of parasitic Death that feeds on Life.

It's not just that we merely "disagree" with the left. Rather, we regard it as a pure horror, for if we had to reduce our consciousness down to the level from which it proceeds, we would no longer be ourselves. And then there would be no point to living. Might as well become a community organizer.

Christopher Dawson was a (small t) traditionalist, but did not believe that history was inevitably winding down. He did, however, feel that only a spiritual rebirth could reverse our downward historical trend.

As Birzer explains, Dawson saw "beyond the mechanistic and materialistic understanding of history," and arrived "at a meta-history that transcended and transfigured conventional historical assumptions." Whereas the conventional historian who focuses on the "raw material" of history can "lose sight of the deeper spiritual forces that make history intelligible to us," Dawson attempted to place the individual "within a larger mythological understanding of story and history" and to render "the past present by the light of the eternal omnipresent." In short, the One can illuminate the Two in a way that the Two can never directly illuminate the One.

In point of fact, the historian cannot help but place history within the context of a larger myth, the question being whether it is a true or false one. In ether worlds, we speak of myth in the proper sense of a narrative that embodies and discloses archetypal reality, not in the fallen sense of mere quasi-animal passive imagination. "It is only in the poetic imagination which is akin to that of the child and the mystic that we can feel the pure sense of mystery and transcendence which is man's natural element" (Dawson).

Any sort of leftist historicism derived from Marx is not just pure mythology (in the luciferic sense), but is a counter myth that is not rooted in any kind of transcendent reality, only in the fevered imagination of the leftist. The same can be said for the myths of scientism, atheism and materialism. Naturally, Dawson was not taken seriously by these intellectually unserious types, since "he took seriously the importance of the Creator, the profound implications of the Incarnation, and the movement of the Holy Spirit in history."

Dawson viewed history through the mirror of revelation instead of the projection of ideology -- and not just the revelation of scripture, but through the living revelation (↓) given him by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, history itself is a revelation of that same Spirit, so the writing of history ultimately involves spirit interpreting Spirit, so to speak. There is no question that he was just as "scholarly" as any academic historian, except that he was free from the narrow and artificial constraints of various fashionable ideologies which come and go.

For Dawson, historicism is "the belief that men can, by the use of their natural powers, discover an inner meaning in the historical process." But "a civilization cannot long survive the dying of belief in a transcendent order that brought the culture into being." Therefore, by "re-mythologizing" history, Dawson was simply doing what I said must be done to avoid eventual catastrophe, which is to write a universal history in the teeth of forces that "desire nothing less than the total subversion and destruction of all that is True, Good, and Beautiful."

Although it is always the blest and curst of times, Dawson may be forgiven for believing that he lived in a somewhat uniquely perilous age, in that (writing in 1940) "the dark forces that have been chained by a thousand years of Christian civilization... have now been set free to conquer the world." Fascism, communism, socialism, and any other illiberal statism all depend upon and flow from the de-Christianization and re-paganization of the West, and the gradual descent into "a chaos of pure sensation."

It should go without saying that there is no merely "human" cure for this temporal descent (since it is a downward prolongation, so to speak, of our fallen humanness), and that "the forces of evil cannot be successfully resisted without the power of Spirit," the only thing which can carry on the work of Creation and thereby reverse our otherwise inevitable Fall.

"Good Petey," cried the B'ob, as down upon the ground he fell: "Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you’ve shown me, by an altered life!"

"I'll think about it," sayeth Petey.

"Okay, then, how's this: I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I shall dilate time and live in and above the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me toward their ultimate fulfillment. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may overcome my higher education and sponge away the writing on this stone! Cut me some slack, O ambiguous spirit!"

49 Comments:

Blogger Rick said...

I heart this post.

“I think we can stipulate that the world is either headed toward apocalypse or unity.”

...at any given moment. Underline given. So it is headed toward both. Otherwise one or the other is a certainty for Ewe (f)or eye.

Christianity says so, I beleaf; apocalypse for the world, unity for the spirit.

11/18/2010 08:47:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

wv would like to add that comas are part of the problem. Under the spell of darkness, people have fallen asleep and mistaken their darkly inspired dreams - the "chaos of pure sensation" - for reality.

11/18/2010 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"This goes directly against my intuitive sense that time is ultimately progressive, even though from within time, things are always simultaneously getting worse and better, so it's understandable that some people see through the half empty glass darkly. "

Besides, it's not that your glass is half full, the problem is that most people compare their glasses to other peoples glasses; the fact is that their glass is probably only half the size of the person's glass they're comparing themselves to. Ditto with those self-satisfied folks who think their glass is full, more than likely they've just bought into a glass that's only half the size it should be.

So... does that make me an optimist or a pessimist? Nah, I think either choice makes you an opportunity-missed.

11/18/2010 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

I think we can stipulate that the world is either headed toward apocalypse or unity.

I wonder sometimes if it is not both at once. That is to say, when the cosmos reaches its deustination, I think it cannot help but be apocalyptic to a great many, maybe even the vast majority, of those who will experience it. Which, really, is everyone.

In unity, there would be no room for illusion, no mystery hiding behind the veil. Everyone would see clearly - particularly, would see the self clearly in relation to the Self, with all of the ramifications entailed therein. To anyone who hasn't done the narcissary omwork, it can't help but be completely cataclysmic.

11/18/2010 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Re. glasses, sizes, etc., I wonder if instead of worrying about the size of the glass, most people wouldn't do better to consider the quality of the contents. Sure some glasses may be full, but full of what, exactly? While others may appear tiny, empty, or both, but if they contain only a droplet of living water, then they are perfectly adequate, and can be said to be more full than a glass containing anything else.

11/18/2010 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Speaking of those discontinuities, there is not, nor will there ever be, any scientific explanation of the phenomenon of life itself, nor of human consciousness.

Along those lines, the human brain has more switches than all the computers on Earth.

Which is extremely cool, and yet I am completely unsurprised.

From the article:
...the study was set up to demonstrate array tomography's potential in neuroscience (which is starting to resemble astronomy)...

Of course. If the cosmos can be understood, it is because the brain is able to take it all in. As above, so below, etc.

11/18/2010 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

In fact, that video of the mousy brain reminds me of the Einsteinian quote in the Coonifesto on pg. 36, about the scientist as a child in God's library.

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

11/18/2010 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

"I wonder sometimes if it is not both at once."

Ditto

:-)

11/18/2010 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Heck of a post. I stopped myself from reposting the entire post in the comments... but I can't not at least resee these two:

"It's not just that we merely "disagree" with the left. Rather, we regard it as a pure horror, for if we had to reduce our consciousness down to the level from which it proceeds, we would no longer be ourselves. And then there would be no point to living. Might as well become a community organizer."

I sense that in nearly every altercation I have with a leftist... they want to show me why their adjustment of calculations is sure to make everything work and skittles to rain down from the sky... and they're completely stumped at why I'd still be revolted even if they did somehow manage a wealth of wealth to redistribute to all.

(shudder)

And,

"For Dawson, historicism is "the belief that men can, by the use of their natural powers, discover an inner meaning in the historical process." But "a civilization cannot long survive the dying of belief in a transcendent order that brought the culture into being." Therefore, by "re-mythologizing" history, Dawson was simply doing what I said must be done to avoid eventual catastrophe, which is to write a universal history in the teeth of forces that "desire nothing less than the total subversion and destruction of all that is True, Good, and Beautiful." "

Just so. We often hear how 'No army can withstand an idea whose time has come', but they seem oblivious to the obvious that 'No army can sustain an idea whose understanding has been lost'. When liberty and freedom is transformed into license and abandon... what can they possibly expect to learn? What could possibly be worth attaining that didn't have the Good, the Beautifula and the True at it's center and zenith?

What are they thinking? Oh yes, that is it... 'what' not Why.

Ugh.

11/18/2010 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger JP said...

Bob says:

"I think we can stipulate that the world is either headed toward apocalypse or unity. If time is progressive, then history represents an arc of salvolution that will result in the reunification of the world, after our 50,000 year journey out of Africa and into the prismhouse of time and cultural diversification."

Well, the bright destiny (this is what we want to achieve) and dark fate (the final inhumanity of the war of all agains all) are the two boundary conditions of the future. We either are collectively traveling toward one or the other (individually, too).

That's life here as humans on earth.

And yes, different people and organizations are definitely moving in different directions at the same time. Some toward Life. Some toward Death.

Hint: We should be trying to get to the good result rather than the bad result.

Hint #2: North Korea is closer to the bad result than South Korea.

11/18/2010 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger mgh said...

Julie: Somewhere there are researchers who have devoted the last decade or so working towards some aspect of artificial intelligence, software or hardware, who are today saying: Aw crap, I’ve been wasting my time!

11/18/2010 11:09:00 AM  
Blogger JP said...

Van says:

"I sense that in nearly every altercation I have with a leftist... they want to show me why their adjustment of calculations is sure to make everything work and skittles to rain down from the sky... and they're completely stumped at why I'd still be revolted even if they did somehow manage a wealth of wealth to redistribute to all."

Leftism doesn't lead to the good result because "everything working" and "raining skittles" aren't where it goes.

It leads to stupidland.

Try telling them that. "Your wordview leads straight to stupidland because of human nature."

I doubt it works as a rhetorical device, but it's true.

11/18/2010 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger JP said...

Bob says:

"This goes directly against my intuitive sense that time is ultimately progressive"

Here in horizontaland, time has a progressive mode. It also has the regressive mode that leads to the war of all against all.

Perhaps it's best to focus on the fact that we have a choice here and we need to make the responsible choice.

11/18/2010 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Julie,
RE the article, I wonder if they are way off on that number.
Was Bob joking once that the speed of human thought was faster than light?
I thought I might take it serious for just a second and my intuition tells me its probably true.

Thought, I think, may be more akin to nonlocality than dependent on this or that switch. The switches may be for something entirely else, say, for once one has the product of an equation rather than storing each step of a formula that is behind it.. Or the switches are for the "carrying out of the decision" but that the thinking is done "before" the switches.
Just a thought..

11/18/2010 11:16:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "I wonder if instead of worrying about the size of the glass, most people wouldn't do better to consider the quality of the contents. Sure some glasses may be full, but full of what, exactly? "

Yep. In fact the one whose thirst is quenched, might be the one who delightedly drank whatever water they had and tossed away the glass.

"I wonder sometimes if it is not both at once."

Yep. In fact, if went back in time and spoke to an Egyptian, or an Athenian, or a Roman... I'm sure they'd say something like "End of the world? Ya think!"

11/18/2010 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

JP said "It leads to stupidland.
Try telling them that. "Your wordview leads straight to stupidland because of human nature."
I doubt it works as a rhetorical device, but it's true."

Heh... though I've certainly thought (and said) so before, I recently railed on my Sister-In-Law for doing the same.

"My entire state [Minnessotta] is full of Stupid people! They all voted for Michelle Bachmann! Look how Stupid she is! How STOOPID must they all be to vote for her?!"

(I was kind and didn't bother pointing out that as a Representative, ALL of her state didn't vote for her, just one district. Family. You've gotta cut 'em some slack.)

But she wasn't just blowing off steam calling someone a 'stupidhead', she, like Bill Maher, Ted Rall, and sooo many others, are serious - they think the vast, vast majority of Americans are literally Stupid. Where do you go from there? I mean besides Auschwitz?

The actions of those we disagree with aren't stupid, they are in the vast majority of cases it's far worse than mere stupidity, it's just what intelligence looks like when fed with certain assumptions... or ASSumptions... as the case may be, and it is at the level and nature of those assumptions that they must be dealt with. Calling someone stupid for coming to the only intelligent conclusion which their assumptions will allow, isn't going to cast you into anything other than stupid in their eyes.

If you can't get them to see the light, calling them blind isn't going to help win your case.

11/18/2010 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11/18/2010 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

(arghhh... Blogger is just... STUPID!!!)

11/18/2010 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ricky said "Thought, I think, may be more akin to nonlocality than dependent on this or that switch."

And it may be that the switches are less about letting a thought form and bubble up from point A to Point B and so on, than unblocking the right openings so that a well formed thought can pass through them all at one and the same time.

11/18/2010 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Rick, re. the speed of thought I doubt Bob was joking. There's a pretty big school of thought that posits the brain as a sort of quantum computer. Frankly, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

You're right, though, there are a lot of scientists who thought (I'd guess with the imaging technology in the earlier link they'll have to unthink it) of neuron activity as merely switchlike, biological 0s and 1s blinking on and off. These days that strikes me as just as foolish as believing that there's a single gene for this or that trait, and if they can just find the right one and switch it on or off then whatever they're trying to fix will be fixed.

We humans see the behavior of our mechanical creations, and become convinced that with added complexity they gain lifelike attributes simply because they are complex; with mirror logic, people then believe that a living organism is simple and reducible enough that we will be able to fully understand how it works by taking it apart.

The reality, though, is that the more we dissect, the bigger the organism becomes, and the more clear it ought to be that each life is a cosmos in quite a literal sense, and the more we try to reduce it to matter and mechanics, the more impossible it becomes to even detect the matter and mechanics involved.

11/18/2010 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

MGH - :D

We can hope they have that much sense, anyway...

11/18/2010 12:32:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

I see we're all on the same switch
:-)

11/18/2010 12:36:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Or maybe just drinking from the same glass ;)

11/18/2010 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

All those switches, and not a SINGLE one labeled "Off" on Nancy Pelosi's melon.

11/18/2010 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

And I still say it's not artifical intelligence, it's artifical personality that's the problem.

Oh, and the fact that computers don't have free will.

They haven't figured out that yet.

Because they are stupid.

And yes, in law school class one day, in the realm of international development, there was an issue about lack of drinking water in someplace in India.

My thought? "Because they are stupid."

Yes, I actually said that. I ended up getting one of my best grades in law school in that class.

11/18/2010 01:11:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

JP said "My thought? "Because they are stupid.""

;-)

11/18/2010 01:18:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Back to the post,

It's very much analogous to the free market, which, at any given moment, will appear to create "problems" such as "income inequality." But if one tries to force incomes to be more equal -- to "spread the wealth around" -- it just results in less wealth, productivity, and affluence for the system as a whole.

Along these lines, there's an interesting, if chilling, article about Soros over at Bookworm room (via Shrinkwrapped)

11/18/2010 01:20:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Thanks for the link, Julie.
I just happen to be rereading Frankl's book for the umpteenth time. Interesting to compare the two takes on survivors. Frankl talks about the numbness that eventually reaches each prisoner. Yet some things, such as injustice, stands out more strongly (in his memories) than physical pain.
Soros definitely sounds like a different kind of prisoner. Or survivor.

11/18/2010 01:43:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

Soros kind of sounds libertarian in that interview.

11/18/2010 02:14:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Going back to the idea that the deeper into neurology one goes, the more it resembles astronomy, the very fact goes right back to yesterday's discussion of man as metaxy.

It's fascinating to me that the point at which the universe is the most simple is on the human scale. Go smaller or bigger and you have nebulous nebulae in either direction, and to a certain degree all the isness becomes near-unintelligible quantity, whether inside a numbskull or out. How many neutrinos dance in the center of a star?

Looked at this way, the human level is the vertex where two infinite angles of space, time and scale meet and make themselves known. Or rather, perhaps, the human realm is the twist in the moebius strip, since the big and the small are simply two sides of the same ring...

11/18/2010 02:17:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

OT, the Magician inaction:

Lidstrom’s game has always been about brains, not brawn; about consistency and efficiency, not through-the-boards hits or breathtaking end-to-end rushes; about picking pucks out of the air at the blue line or along the boards, not picking fights.

“He probably spends as much energy playing 30 minutes as I spend playing 15,” Alfredsson said. “He’s not flashy, and he doesn’t try to be. He sees the play and he makes it – 10 times out of 10, the right play.”

11/18/2010 02:28:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

Being a sports fan is something I never quite understood.

I developed a strong dislike for it at college, I suppose. Being that the point of college was the developmnet of the intellect and not the development of some bizarre human tribalish spectacle.

I've always wondered how professional and collegiate sports could best be elimiated from the social milleu.

That's also on my list of "things to get rid of" in addition to leftism.

11/18/2010 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It's a guy thing.

11/18/2010 02:45:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

And eliminating sports would be disastrous for the male psyche and for society.

11/18/2010 02:46:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Really? That's funny, 'cuz if you actually managed to get rid of leftism, you would have no say in whether anyone else were allowed to play sports or not.

11/18/2010 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

That's where the church comes in.

Moral suasion.

Damaging to the male psyche?

The only thing that sports ever did to my psyche was bore me and sap my will to live. I was glad when high school was over and I never had to participate in a sport again.

Seriously, what's the point of sports?

11/18/2010 02:53:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Guy thing.

11/18/2010 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

I can understand war.

Your goal is to annihilate the enemy and make sure that their culture is wiped from the face of the earth using strategic and technological superiority.

There is a goal that can be achieved once and for all. Total and permanent victory.

I know that war is evil, but I can undersand why you would do it.

Sports?

Not so much. Boring.

11/18/2010 03:01:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Speaking purely as a female, while I wouldn't call myself a sports fan as such there is a definite appreciation for watching men in action, especially at the professional level. I don't like soccer, but I can appreciate Beckham.

And if you can't see the fun of participating, regardless of gender, I don't know what to tell you, JP. Sucks to be you?

11/18/2010 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

The sports (and hunting) thing is one of the problems I had with actually forming a bond with my father.

I wanted to play strategic games and Avalon hill war games.

He wanted to watch and play sports.

Eveentually, I just ignored him and played computer games and read books.

I'm already dreading having to watch my kids play sports. There's nothing more boring to me than watching a sporting event.

I would prefer washing dishes or doing laundry.

11/18/2010 03:09:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

Julie says:

"And if you can't see the fun of participating, regardless of gender, I don't know what to tell you, JP. Sucks to be you?"

It's just not something that I enjoyed because I was never any good at any of it.

I don't do popular music either. Never been to an actual pop music concert in my life. I will probably never go.

I own some CDs but I probably listened to one in the past year. I never really understood the music thing either. I tried to pretend to be interested in it, but I never really saw the point of music either, particualy rock or modern music.

So, I don't talk about sports or music.

And I don't play computer games anymore, either.

I'm not a fan of modern American life.

Come to think of it, the only hobby I have right now is a vague interest in history, international relations, and economics.

11/18/2010 03:17:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

You're depressed. Ever tried medication? How about testosterone level?

11/18/2010 03:21:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I wanted to play strategic games and Avalon hill war games.

He wanted to watch and play sports.


You say that as though the two were mutually exclusive.

I'm already dreading having to watch my kids play sports.

If you love them, they'll never know that. Maybe instead of seeing it as "watching the kids play sports," you should try thinking of it as "watching your kids do something they love." Depending on the sport, you could even help them figure out the strategic aspects you've presumably gleaned from years of playing Avalon Hill games. Just because sports are physical doesn't mean they aren't also all about strategy.

11/18/2010 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Frankly, I didn't find the parasite stage of parenting especially rewarding, at least half the time. It's finally getting more fun now that he's able to play baseball and basketball. Plus he gets the Simpsons.

11/18/2010 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

:D

Love the Simpsons. DH has already been trying to teach the baby how to say "D'omer"...

11/18/2010 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

You'll miss those days when he leaves the petri dish.

11/18/2010 03:59:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

JP said "Seriously, what's the point of ____"

You find yourself asking that question of a lot of things, don't you?

I was never a big sports fan. I liked playing neighborhood baseball & football (few rules, much blood).

Going to a game was fun as an event of going with Dad & friends, but rarely cared much about the game being played - always seemed to me that the guys on the team, they were having fun, and those of us in the crowd were just watching... with a few exceptions. Seeing Wilt Chamberlin & Jerry West of the Lakers from about three rows back - yeah, that was cool. Our High School football games were fun events, and if a close game, that could get me involved (translation:LOUD and dangerous to be within fist pumping range). Going to Cardinals & Rams games are fun events... you get the picture.

I never really took to watching on T.V. either, unless it was with friends who liked one team or the other... especially with the Tarkanian & the Running Rebels when they won the NAA(whateveracronymThingy) championship - that was fun. I guess I never really cared about a team... I wasn't on the team, I didn't know anyone on the team... whadoIcare?

However.

Watching my Kids play sports? Are you kidding me? The most involved, edge of my seat, scream my head off stand and cheer things I've ever been involved in, and yep, involved is probably the key word there. Whether as coach, helping out or just a parent in the stands... my kids, their friends, etc... few things more involving, exciting and fun than that.

11/18/2010 04:43:00 PM  
Blogger black hole said...

JP, my man! You hit it on the nailhead!

War is the thing. Everything else is for ninnies.

Left has hgher morale than the you guys. We are better trained, better equipped, and better led.

You talk a lot of smack about us, but what are you going to do?

We win, and will continue to win, because we train harder, fight harder, and are more aggressive. We know what we want. We want stuff, and power.

And as for the human species...it can either exist, or not. We don't care.

So, what is your plan? How do you think you can win this thing?

11/18/2010 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

bh said "How do you think you can win this thing?"

You typify the leftists. 'Nuff said.

11/18/2010 07:23:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home