Posts by betty boop

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution

    09/28/2014 11:27:10 AM PDT · 43 of 44
    betty boop to TXnMA; JimSEA; BrandtMichaels; fishtank; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    If I know you as I believe I do, you most certainly did not use "immaterial" in the legalistic sense of "irrelevant" — did you? '-)

    Nope, certainly not: I didn't intend "immaterial" in the legalistic sense of "irrelevant!"

    Good luck with the preparation for all those presentations you're doing! Come back when you can. You are missed, dear brother in Christ!

  • Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution

    09/27/2014 5:46:25 PM PDT · 34 of 44
    betty boop to marron; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; YHAOS
    I would never try to prove God’s existence. No one is ever convinced by argument.

    I so agree. Even if one could do that — which one can't, in principle — conviction does not come from the operations of logic — that is to say, the operations of "dialectical argument."

    Though that is not to say that reason has no role in human investigations into the Reality of which we are parts and participants. After all, Reality was fully "here" before we humans arrived (as species or individual); and I daresay it will still be here, after we humans pass out of it (whether as species or at the individual level).

    A very open question: "What is reason?"

    My trial answer would be something like this: Much-vaunted "Reason" ends up being an amalgamation of human experience (direct and historical), observation, and logic. Plus we can toss in "common sense" as the salt that can only enhance this stew, by causing its several ingredients to optimally cohere....

    You are absolutely right about this: "Once you see him you can’t un-see him. Until that day, no intellectual construct is ever going to convince you."

    Oh so very true — to you and me anyway.

    But America is seemingly catastrophically culturally divided at this time. It is along this profound cultural divide that the United States of America — its values, principles, traditions, institutions, culture, and Constitution — is currently disintegrating before our very eyes, thanks to the tender ministrations of a chief executive who detests America in principle, with every fiber of his being.

    I'll put a sock in it for now.

    Thanks so much for writing, dear brother!

  • Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution

    09/27/2014 3:43:44 PM PDT · 32 of 44
    betty boop to JimSEA
    I’m not about to go on another game of creationist wack-a-mole.

    I am not a "creationist." And I am not interested in playing games of "wack-a-mole."

    What I am interested in is demonstrating how Darwinist theory places shackles on the free development of biological science.

    Here's an analogy. Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe was actually enormously productive in explaining celestial phenomena that were observable at the time. But new observations came along that this model couldn't answer for. Thus, science had to change, and it did.

    Darwinists seem to be the modern-day Ptolemys of biology. The basic difference is that the Ptolemaic model was found wanting, and science was free to discover the reasons why and develop better explanations.

    In contrast, Darwinism is a doctrinal enterprise, in the sense that, even if it is shown that it does not answer for new observations — principally from the mathematics and information science fields — it is still the "received doctrine" that can in no way be challenged. That is, in terms of my analogy here, it cannot/will not proceed from the geocentric to the heliocentric model. It brooks no challenge whatsoever, even when increasingly it is obvious that it does not explain the most fundamental questions about biological origins and living processes.

    FWIW.

    Thanks for writing JimSEA.

  • Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution

    09/27/2014 2:49:17 PM PDT · 30 of 44
    betty boop to JimSEA; BrandtMichaels; TXnMA; fishtank; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    The basic building blocks of a cell, proteins are very complex and serve a multitude of functions. A single cell is, however less complex than multicellular organisms.

    These two statements seem true enough — as far as they go (which isn't very far).

    Looking more deeply into the matter, however, we are confronted with Francis Crick's Central Dogma of biology, which states (in the words of Hubert Yockey) that "information can be transferred from DNA to DNA, DNA to mRNA, and mRNA to protein. Three transfers that the Central Dogma states never occur are protein to protein, protein to DNA, protein to mRNA."

    ...no code exists to send information from protein sequences to mRNA or DNA.... Therefore, it is impossible that the origin of life was "proteins first" from the Urschleim [i.e., some sort of undifferentiated yet material chemical "soup"]. Nevertheless, "proteins first" is widely taught in university classrooms and perhaps at the Grand Academy of Lagado as well....

    The restrictions of the Central Dogma ... are mathematical. Scientists cannot get around them by clever chemistry. Likewise, Nature's proscription against the building of perpetual motion machines is also mathematical. The Second Law of Thermodynamics places a severe limit on the ability of a clever engineer to build machines that derive work from heat. Regardless of the choice of materials or design it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine. These restrictions apply however socially, politically, and environmentally desirable it may be to make perpetual motion machines.

    So it seems to me that Darwinian Tree of Life has a lot of 'splaining to do, in the matter of how "simple" systems "evolved" into more complex ones, when the differentiator between them is the ability to process/communicate information — which is, of course, wholly immaterial.

    Plus the idea of "function" is something that makes many Darwinians (and other scientists as well) nervous. For any function denotes a purpose or goal — in Aristotelian language, a "final cause" — which is the very thing that Darwinism denies in Nature. Darwinian Nature always moves ("evolves") from the "bottom-up" — from comparatively simple systems to more complex ones — according to random chance, as reinforced by natural selection.

    Thus it is dogmatic in Darwinism to regard Nature as having no purposes at all. But this supposition tells us nothing about how information actually flows in the natural world. DNA is more "informative" than proteins, We need to remember, as Yockey points out, that "life is guided by information, and inorganic processes are not."

    Darwinist evolutionary theory — which sees life as something emergent from inorganic, i.e., non-living processes — by and large seems wholly oblivious to such considerations.

    Actually, Darwinism has no theory of life qua life. It can tell you nothing about what life "is" or "where it came from"; it is merely a description of what already-existent life "looks like."

    To those of reductionist persuasion!

    Just some thoughts for your consideration, JimSEA.

    Thank you so much for writing.

  • Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution

    09/27/2014 12:47:42 PM PDT · 28 of 44
    betty boop to JimSEA
    Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins Ph.D. has the ICR habit of misstating evolutionary theory.

    How did he misstate evolutionary theory in this article?

    Please provide an example.

  • Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution

    09/27/2014 10:47:47 AM PDT · 24 of 44
    betty boop to JimSEA; BrandtMichaels; TXnMA; fishtank; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    …the fact that science hasn’t got an explanation for something doesn’t “prove” the existence of God or intelligent design. To argue otherwise is a classic non sequitur. It just means we haven’t figured something out yet.

    JimSEA, I gather from the context above that by “we,” you mean scientists who, deploying scientific presuppositions and methods exclusively, will eventually be able to figure out everything going on in the universe, given sufficient time, by means of such methods. I have reason to suspect that this expectation will prove unlikely to be the case.

    At the same time, I am not a person who believes that when science fails to explain something this is somehow “proof” of the existence of God. That is total nonsense: God is not subject to “proof.”

    What worries me about the practice of biological science in particular nowadays is that it seems so constrained by Cartesian and Newtonian principles that it is hampering its ability to understand living systems in nature at the very outset. This practice entails a whole bunch of unexamined presuppositions, such as:

    • The expectation that everything in the natural world is reducible to “matter in its motions” governed by causal relations obtaining between material states and the forces impinging on them — or as it has been stated, “everything supervenes on the physical.” [Newton’s legacy.] Also involved is the presupposition that biological systems are physical “mechanisms.” [Descartes’ legacy.]

    Yet as the great mathematician and theoretical biophysicist Robert Rosen has pointed out,

    The universe described by these laws is an extremely impoverished, nongeneric one, and one in which life cannot exist. In short, far from being a special case of [the physical] laws, and reducible to them, biology provides the most spectacular examples of their inadequacy…. To this day, today, the formidable powers of theoretical physics find nothing to say about the biosphere, nor does any physicist contemplating the mysteries of life speak of them qua physicist. This, I would argue, is because biology remains today, as it has always been, a repository of conceptual enigmas for contemporary physics, and not technical problems to be dealt with through mere ingenuity or the application of familiar algorithms. Somehow, the life gets irretrievably lost whenever this is attempted.

    A mechanism is something that can be productively studied by disassembling it down to its parts. Then the expectation is, if you understand the parts, just sum them all up, and you can completely recapture the whole of which they are the parts. This happens to be impossible in biological systems. When one disassembles a biological system, one instantly loses information about that system — preeminently its organizational information. One also happens to lose its life….

    This parts-to-whole expectation reflects what is known as “context independence,” which is one central feature of scientific objectivity. Yet it appears that the “parts” of living systems are not context independent. For they are both “partsandparticipants” in the Whole — the Whole being the very context that is being rigorously ignored, for the sake of “scientific objectivity”….

    I have an analogy that suggests somewhat the loss of information that is involved in the sort of paradigmatic reductionism that I am trying to describe here: the “reduction” of an analog to a digital signal. Ask: “What is lost in this transformation?”

    I am not a “water carrier” for either Jeffrey Tomkins Ph.D. or ICR. I’m pretty skeptical in general these days. But I did like the article. If anybody has a specific objection to Tomkins’ methods and/or conclusions, I would very much like to hear the details.

    Thanks so much for writing, JimSEA!

  • Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution

    09/25/2014 8:44:27 AM PDT · 11 of 44
    betty boop to fishtank; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; TXnMA; YHAOS
    Clearly the concepts of intricate genome rearrangements on a massive scale combined with complex encryption systems do not bode well for something allegedly derived by the random chance processes of evolution.

    Ergo, Darwin's theory is basically just a myth....

    A theory that requires speciation to be a process of moving from the simple to the complex, by means of a random chance process, is utterly undermined by the accumulating evidence that all biological life is mind-bogglingly complex, even the so-called "simple" living systems.

    Thanks for posting, fishtank.

  • Math Teacher Takes Almost an Entire Minute Explaining How to Add 9 Plus 6 Using Common Core Math

    09/10/2014 11:21:54 AM PDT · 123 of 125
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; chulaivn66; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    Please be sure to ping me to the answer to the “Second Reality” question!

    Well, dearest sister in Christ, a few days have passed, and my correspondent hasn’t gotten back to me yet. Maybe he doesn’t plan to.

    FWIW, lacking further information, I got the impression that what he meant about “second reality” was somehow equivalent to the idea of what is called “a new lease on life.” [No details proffered.]

    Yet from the classical and scholastic philosophical point of view, what a “second reality” actually gets you is: a new lease on death.

    “Second reality” has been defined by philosophy, in so many words, as a “free” construction of the human imagination (a sort of “imagination” suffering from a pneumopathological disorder [nosos] described at least as early as the 5th century B.C.), which purports to be a complete description of the Cosmos — i.e., a “truthful” depiction of the world as it is and how it works, for the purpose of describing a future which is unknown and completely unknowable in principle.

    But such constructions of second realities can only be “true” on the condition that certain critical sectors of First Reality have been obliterated as improper objects of Reason, thus to be eradicated from human thought.

    In general, what most post-modern second realities seem to require just to “stand up on their own legs” is the obliteration of a certain critical sector or component of millennial, I daresay universal, human historical experience. That is to say, of any notion of the spiritual, of any divine connection between God and man, thus between human existence and the world at large.

    “Modern science” seems to scorn such considerations. Evidently, the scientistically-massaged popular view nowadays is that what “philosophers” do is perfectly irrelevant and risible: “For the world consists of what we scientists can ‘measure.’ And fully explains itself in such terms.”

    But to state that scientific method completely displaces and renders nugatory all other human intellectual approaches to the truth of Reality is false. Philosophers “measure” at a scale that differs from the scale defining the scientific method. The reason being: Philosophers deal with universals; scientists deal with time-bound particularities.

    Above I stated that to espouse a second reality necessarily involves espousing a “new lease on death.”

    I would love to have further conversation regarding this topic. Yet I realize, possibly only a few (if any) readers around here would be interested in it….

    I am always so very glad for your company, your interest, on these issues, dearest sister in Christ! And for your wonderful contributions to the discourse! In Christ’s Love and Peace, now and always!

  • How a moral code outrages secular left: Personal responsibility gives the secular severe heartburn

    09/08/2014 12:49:05 PM PDT · 9 of 12
    betty boop to 2ndDivisionVet; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; chulaivn66
    The Emory University professor [i.e., "historian" Carol Anderson] insists that the police shooting in the St. Louis suburb of unarmed robbery suspect Michael Brown, which was followed by days of rioting and looting, was triggered by “white rage against black progress.” Say what?

    Say what??? This Carol Anderson person must be an idiot.

    In the first place, "white folk" like me dearly desire "Black progress" in American society. Yet evidently on her view, we "white folk" don't understand the critical importance of specifically Black advancement.

    However, it is clear that when Black advancement does not occur, then we must "redress" for its lack straight out of our own pocketbooks — the "we" here being the American middle class that Captain Zero has been zealously working to suffocate and expunge.

    But who will pay the bills of American society, specifically those bills entailed by federally-mandated projects of "Black advancement," if the middle class is expunged???

    In the second place, this "professor" is implying that "Black progress" can only be left reliably to the tender ministrations of the Democrat Party.

    People who actually know anything about American history know the Democrat party has always been the party of "Jim Crow."

    It was the party of Abraham Lincoln — i.e., the Republican party — that was indefatigable in the prosecution of Negro emancipation. After the GOP won tremendous victories — the thirteenth to fifteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution — it was the Democrats who, for the next 100 years, fought the full emancipation of Black Americans tooth and nail, finessing this egregious violation of their natural human rights with "separate but equal" laws based on logical chicanery and unsupportable moral pretenses.

    It wasn't until LBJ came along and — as repugnant as it was to him personally — acknowledged that these emancipated slaves finally were "voters" — and thus, could be bought.... But then, LBJ was a consummate political cynic and manipulator....

    And the rest is history.

    What I do not understand is how Black America, given the mere facts of history, would consider the Democrat party their "friend." In what way is human bondage any qualitatively different, whether under the overseer/master plantation model, or the model of the Democrat party?

    The late, great, Frederick Douglass — a man of world-class intellect, not to mention direct existential experience as a Black Man — must be rolling over in his grave....

    As far as all this goes for me, I'll be dead soon enough. So the final working out of this crucial problem probably is not a direct concern for me.

    What I'm concerned about is the American people — of all races — who survive me.

  • Math Teacher Takes Almost an Entire Minute Explaining How to Add 9 Plus 6 Using Common Core Math

    09/08/2014 11:21:16 AM PDT · 121 of 125
    betty boop to hosepipe; chulaivn66; Alamo-Girl; marron; metmom; xzins
    Forsaken by WHICH God?... There be designer Gods aplenty.. besides the regular ones.. Even atheists have made themselves Gods.. to inhabit the vacuum..

    Jeepers, dear 'pipe, you speak of God in the plural here. That is difficult for me to conceive; for I'm "all in" — mind, heart, soul, and strength — with the Shema: "The Lord thy God is One God" [Who expresses Himself to human comprehension as three substantively indivisible Persons].

    The Oneness of God entails that any other "gods" are pretenders, false gods. [Take Allah, for instance. And IMHO, even Buddha has his limitations. But we won't even "go there" in this writing.]

    I do take your point about the "atheist position": The main point of denying or "forsaking God" is to create a vacuum into which human cupidity and will to power can rush, without any possible limitation or resistance.

    It's at that point that we enter into an inverted, "looking glass" world, a "second reality" that has no conceivable foundation in truth whatsoever....

    Even an atheist must know that God "exists." Otherwise, why would he contend against Him so relentlessly, so mightily — or from my point of view, so tiresomely and pointlessly?

    Thank you for the cite to Romans 1:21. It captures the point under contention perfectly.

    JMHO FWIW

    Thank you so much for writing, dear brother! HUGS!!!

  • Math Teacher Takes Almost an Entire Minute Explaining How to Add 9 Plus 6 Using Common Core Math

    09/08/2014 8:09:34 AM PDT · 119 of 125
    betty boop to chulaivn66; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    Both the wife and I have recently floated off into some God-forsaken Second Reality. Frankly we have discovered, much to our amazement having avoided doing so all of those years, we like being here.

    I'm curious chulaivn66: What do you mean by "Second Reality?" The term has a precise meaning for a student of philosophy. But what does it mean to you (and your wife)? And if you "like being there," is it for the reason that it is "God-forsaken?"

    I'm just very puzzled by your statement. Why would anybody like anything that is "God-forsaken?"

  • Math Teacher Takes Almost an Entire Minute Explaining How to Add 9 Plus 6 Using Common Core Math

    09/04/2014 2:45:13 PM PDT · 33 of 125
    betty boop to walford; Alamo-Girl; marron; metmom; xzins; hosepipe; TXnMA

    p.s.: IMHO, that maniacal teacher should instantly be fired, and replaced by a teacher who can explain to pupils what Occam’s Razor is. Kids equipped with such information could probably defend themselves against such intellectual chicanery, going forward.

  • Math Teacher Takes Almost an Entire Minute Explaining How to Add 9 Plus 6 Using Common Core Math

    09/04/2014 2:31:42 PM PDT · 21 of 125
    betty boop to walford; Alamo-Girl; marron; metmom; xzins; hosepipe; TXnMA
    Omigod. Chicanery, indeed. "Stupidity redistribution" indeed. Even worse, it tells kids that nothing can be known for sure outside of such abstractions, and that they should never trust their own eyes and ears.

    What I'm trying to say is mathematics — the foundation of logic and science — is highly intuitive. As such, it just seems to naturally, innately correspond to the way human minds actually work, analyze data, and process information.

    Why complicate things for these young-'uns? What they need to succeed in life is a greater sense of realism — which mathematics seems to comprehend in its representation of reality. (I'm speaking here of the core mathematical disciplines, Number Theory and Geometry. I am not speaking of the "instrumental maths," notably Statistics.)

    The last thing young people need is to be trained to prefer the false promises of abstract thinking. What they need is training and skill in systematic, analytical thinking.

    Otherwise, what happens is they just float off into some God-forsaken Second Reality.

    FWIW

  • Joan Rivers Dead at 81- Rest in Peace

    09/04/2014 1:12:38 PM PDT · 34 of 104
    betty boop to Nachum; Alamo-Girl

    My husband knew Joan Rivers, having played lead trumpet in her backing ensemble when she brought her act to the Boston area years ago. He remembers her “as a beautiful and most gracious lady,” so unlike her stage persona in the kindly, open way she related to people. She was the real thing, the genuine article. R.I.P.

  • Joan Rivers Dead at 81- Rest in Peace

    09/04/2014 1:12:38 PM PDT · 33 of 104
    betty boop to Nachum; Alamo-Girl

    My husband knew Joan Rivers, having played lead trumpet in her backing ensemble when she brought her act to the Boston area years ago. He remembers her “as a beautiful and most gracious lady,” so unlike her stage persona in the kindly, open way she related to people. She was the real thing, the genuine article. R.I.P.

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    09/03/2014 10:18:01 PM PDT · 40 of 40
    betty boop to Zionist Conspirator

    Yep, TR was the first Progressive president.

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    09/03/2014 12:47:37 PM PDT · 35 of 40
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; loveliberty2; xzins; hosepipe; metmom; marron; Dust in the Wind; Jacquerie
    No matter how true a statement may be, e.g. the reference to Creator in the Declaration of Independence — if it threatens or offends or excludes (in this case, atheists) the political power brokers will see that it is not mentioned or is explained to be more politically 'correct.'

    IMHO, We currently suffer from a "plague of the idiotes" — the "fools" and "men without chests" (as Chesterton put it), who for some strange reason believe they are "elected" to rule over the rest of us — for our own good.

    Speaking of "chests," I've got something I really want to get off mine: My feeling of total revulsion for a man like Richard Dawkins, the famous "biologist" who once famously said that Darwinist theory enabled him to be "an intellectually-fulfilled atheist" — and then wrote a book called The God Delusion. Whatta jerk. He must have a very reduced, incurious intellect.

    Which I gather is what one gets, when one expunges God from one's view of Reality.

    If one banishes divine Spirit and Logos from one's understanding of Reality, this requires that one first must reject the findings of countless millennia of human experience and history. Any student of human culture can tell you that the deepest experience of human beings universally has always turned on the ultimate question: What is the relation of the human being with God?

    So if you take God out of the picture — as Dawkins and his friends definitely do want to do — then how is man to understand himself, in terms of the most profound questions that face human beings? Questions involving: a man's truthful understanding of himself; his understanding of his social relations, and the obligations imposed on him as a member of a wider community than himself; questions of human suffering and of his own post-mortem destiny. Et al.

    When Dawkins decided to expunge God (and ridicule those who love Him), practically the only strategy he left himself was to become a philosophical Utilitarian. He is joined in this by such luminaries as Peter Singer, who chairs the Ethics branch of the Philosophy department at Princeton (go figure); Daniel Dennett, Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University; et al.

    The philosophy of "utility" was first proposed by David Ricardo (1772–1823), a British political economist, and was further elaborated by the British philosophers, the Mills, father and son. In our own day, by, e.g., Richard Riorty and that annoying Richard Dworkins person....

    Taken altogether, these men represent the underlying worldview of Progressive thought in our own time.

    Here's what I'm driving at: If one can persuade a man that he has no connection to the divine whatsoever — which connection, of course, is impossible if "God is dead" or merely a fiction of primitive, superstitious minds — then he ineluctably becomes a "cipher" that statisticians can manipulate. He joins the amorphous body of Mass Man. He loses all possibility of recognition of human dignity as a person, as a unique individual who possesses divinely-ordained natural rights.

    The upshot is the rights he has must come only as grants from the State. In the course of time, the Mass Man, lacking any moral principle, will devolve into competing interest groups — which can be endlessly (it seems) manipulated to contend with one another for the available public spoils. Under such conditions, the fulmination of inter-group conflict is in the prime interest of the Progressive State.

    It is a "divide and conquer" strategy, right down to the ground, that can only sow social disorder ad infinitum. And it seems to me no sane person who understood these developments would tolerate the total debauchment of our sociopolitical order that the Progressives are seeking to achieve.

    Before closing, I need to say what Utilitarianism — a "school philosophy" — portends. My take is this: Since absent God, the human person cannot be sacred, and thus has no force as an "individual"; he is simply a member of a species. The only human thing about him is his participation as a member of such. The Utilitarian tells you that his mission is, under such conditions, the inculcation and promulgation of the new, "progressive," value: The greatest good for the greatest number.

    But these freaking idiots have no concept of the Good. They lost all hope of a rational ground for the Good when they decided to "dump" God. (In their own minds, of course.) The fact of reality is: The "existence" of God is not subject to their personal recognition and/or validation. And by no means have any of these creeps ever shown any "concrete" evidence for the non-existence of God.

    When even supposedly morally-neutral "science" can be corrupted like this, to show or "prove" something it can't even reach to, then we do, indeed, live in a thoroughly corrupt age. What really kills me is how few people nowadays seem aware, let alone concerned, about these developments.

    Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for writing, and for your penetrating observations!

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    08/29/2014 2:34:46 PM PDT · 26 of 40
    betty boop to loveliberty2; Alamo-Girl; xzins; hosepipe; metmom; marron; Dust in the Wind; Jacquerie; ...
    Perhaps the following essay, reprinted with permission, may be helpful for the discussion also.

    Oh, DEFINITELY it is most helpful! A wonderful resource for this discussion. Thank you so very much!

    I particularly resonated to this insight:

    In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.

    The Framers were so wise: They did not enchain future generations — the national Posterity — to the decisions made by their ancestors. That is precisely what Article V is all about.

    Yet because we can say that the Constitution itself provides for its own modification if/as urged by changes in social and economic reality, by referring the urgent problem of how to deal with these effects to decisions made by the contemporaneous people who actually suffer from such causes, does this define what a "living constitution" is?

    The so-called "living constitution" [LC] is a mere term of art designed to mask the fact that the people who comprise the body politic, under the LC regime, are not even consulted with respect to matters that affect them most deeply, most critically, most personally.

    Yet to me, the most despicable thing about LC theory, is that it has absolutely no use for the very idea of "posterity."

    The reason being: Any reflection regarding the claims of "posterity" must take into account the concept of Life as an intergenerational phenomenon that, from time to time, needs defending by those now living — the progenitors of the posterity that follows.

    Just an observation here: The defenders of living constitution theory tend not to be defenders of the principle of life for its own sake. Indeed, the entire purpose of the former is to obliterate the claim that life is valuable, inviolate, for its own sake.

    The Framers of the Constitution built for the ages in precisely this sense: They left all needful adaptations of the requirements of the original Constitution, should they hamper the progress of "posterity" due to changing conditions social, political, and economic, to the judgment of the very people themselves, so affected.

    But this is the very thing the theorists of the "living constitution" are trying to obviate. In principle.

    The "living constitution" is what "we" — I'm here referencing the "opinion" of credentialed experts, not "average" people — say it is. And if you have a different view or opinion of the matter, then you are patently WRONG from the get-go. You may also be immoral or even criminal to hold a point of view that differs from "expert opinion."

    Gotta close for now. Thank you so very much for writing, and posting this excellent article!

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    08/29/2014 1:25:10 PM PDT · 25 of 40
    betty boop to muir_redwoods; Alamo-Girl; xzins; hosepipe; metmom; marron; Dust in the Wind; Jacquerie; ...
    Living document my a$$. The Founders would not have spent so much ink on the amendment process if every county court judge could rewrite the Constitution on a whim.

    Oh so very true, muir_redwoods!

    Which tells us that the Article V amendment process is the very thing the progressivists want to avoid. Because there is no widespread pubic support for their policy prescription projects, they must do an end-run around Article V, to secure their illegitimate ends that the Constitution does not and cannot accommodate. And as rapidly as possible.

    Thank you for drawing attention to this fundamental problem.

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    08/29/2014 12:48:03 PM PDT · 21 of 40
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; Rockingham; xzins; hosepipe; metmom; marron; Dust in the Wind; Jacquerie; DoughtyOne; ..
    ...should the public become as mindless as cattle, the Constitution would no longer be effective for their governance.

    Indeed. And yet it is noteworthy that "progressive education" of the John Dewey school (learned from the Germans, from Hegel on up) is devoted to transforming the rising generation of students into "mindless cattle," by depriving them of all historical memory.

    Instead, Dewey's education theory is all about shaping "citizens" into "productive members" of society. Ultimately, the citizen's main contribution to society obtains from their status as workers, and thus taxpayers. Keep them pacified, and collect the receipts. That's the entire interest of the State.

    If there is no historical memory, then there's nothing to "conserve," going forward. Conservative thought has no basis whatever, once historical memory is expunged from society.

    This sort of thing seems to work very well for the teachers' unions.

    We live in a corrupt age. People seem no longer to care about Truth for its own sake.

    Much peril comes to us, I suppose, by the sort of mental habits that support such a view of actual reality.

    Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for sharing your thoughts on this matter.

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    08/29/2014 11:48:08 AM PDT · 17 of 40
    betty boop to Rockingham; Alamo-Girl; xzins; hosepipe; metmom; marron; Dust in the Wind; Jacquerie; DoughtyOne; ..
    For complicated reasons rooted in history, I do not see the term "living constitution" as a malign seed that subverted America's constitutional system. Moreover, the metaphor has such strength in the public mind that in many instances contesting it needlessly weakens our arguments and our credibility.

    I respectfully disagree with this assessment of the historical situation. I do see the term “living constitution” as a malign seed that has historically subverted our constitutional system. That is to say, the term has acquired a particular historical meaning. To then take that term and “co-opt” its use to make it mean something else strikes me as a very dubious enterprise, and makes us complicit in the destruction of language and logic.

    There’s another example of this sort of rhetorical maneuver that I find equally detestable — the total redefinition of a word that has had a constant, unchanging meaning for millennia: Marriage. Historically, “marriage” has meant the official recognition (be it by family/tribe custom or religious authority or civil magistrate) of a formal, enduring compact involving specifically male–female bonding for the purpose of begetting and raising children. Under this understanding of the word, there is no basis to suppose that such a thing as “gay” — same-sex — marriage could exist in the first place — obviously, because same-sex partners do not and cannot procreate.

    So, what did the progressive activists do? They redefined the term, and got legislatures and courts to back them up. I find this sort of operation totally corrupt. Now ”marriage” is whatever the loudest-mouthed bully says it is, even if (conceivably, logically) it might extend to the recognition of a “formal compact” between a man and a goat…. Or a woman and her parakeet.

    Such a construct trivializes both human love and human life. Which was probably the “progressive” object of the game from the get-go.

    When interested parties can redefine the very meaning of words at will, what does that do to the prospects for rational human discourse? When words lose their historic meanings, what do we have to talk about? How can we understand one another? Rather, this sounds like piling up more and more bricks for a new Tower of Babel….

    So, rather than appropriate the term “living constitution” and re-twist it for our purposes, I think we should constantly remind people that this term of art is NOT referencing the Article V Amendment process. To do so is to lose the critically important recognition that “living constitution” theory is a frank, bare-faced attempt to get around the requirements of Article V. It is deliberately designed to obviate the constitutional requirement of Article V, which is: Always to submit great public questions to the deliberation and consent of the sovereign people of the several states. Ultimate questions of public polity — ultimate because they reach and apply to all Americans if enacted — cannot be decided by legislatures and courts, but must be submitted to the judgment of the whole people before they can be applied to the whole people.

    Plus there is always this consideration: If you use the tactics of “the other side” (TOS), even against TOS, you are playing by their rules. Thus instantly, you are conceding tactical advantage to them. Even more importantly, you make yourself indistinguishable from them along the lines of logical and moral reasoning.

    I strongly advise against “going there.” It’s not clear to me at all from reading you whether this is the sort of thing that Mark Levin — for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration — actually proposes.

    You wrote,

    As Mark Levin urges, the restoration of American liberty may require constitutional amendments for that purpose. In such an effort, the "living constitution" metaphor may be useful to us by hijacking progressive sentiments and reasoning and enlisting them in the cause of conservative reform. More than a few political battles have been won through such artifices.

    RE: “hijacking progressive sentiments and reasoning and enlisting them in the cause of conservative reform” is not something that I can conceive of happening, now or ever. It is, to me, a pipe dream. Still, I can appreciate how winning political battles often has been accomplished by means of artifice. [See: Obamacare.]

    Yet to me, ultimately, this is not about winning “political battles.” That seems all by itself to trivialize the enormous problems liberty-loving Americans face. Rather, it’s about revalidating the truths that lie at the very heart and foundation of American order.

    Do you really want to commit the future of We the People to artifices and stratagems? This is not a short-term contest to be decided by winners and losers. This is ultimately a project for the recovery of the American “soul,” which cannot be done by artifice, but must be sought in Truth.

    To be continued…. Thank you so very much, Rockingham, for sharing your observations about these matters!

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    08/28/2014 3:45:55 PM PDT · 2 of 40
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; TXnMA; All; Kaslin

    FYI for my friends. All others completely welcome.

  • The “Living Constitution”: Trojan Horse of Progressive Politics

    08/28/2014 3:42:43 PM PDT · 1 of 40
    betty boop
    FYI. Hope we can have a good discussion about this subject matter. To me, it's critically important.
  • Rev. Al Gets It Right

    08/28/2014 2:45:15 PM PDT · 19 of 22
    betty boop to xzins; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom
    Dr. Ben is an amazingly gracious man — a healer, a peacemaker. May God ever bless him!

    And may God grant to Rev. Al that he learn a thing or two about the truth of reality from Dr. Benjamin Carson. The well-being of his own soul may depend on it. Not to mention the public peace.

  • Rev. Al Gets It Right

    08/28/2014 9:14:12 AM PDT · 6 of 22
    betty boop to Kaslin; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    "And now," he said, "we get to the 21st century, we get to where we've got some positions of power. And you decide it ain't black no more to be successful. Now, you want to be a n----- and call your woman a 'ho.' You've lost where you're coming from."

    How strange to hear this statement coming from the Rev. Al....

    Yet I'm convinced that Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King would have completely agreed with it.

  • Daily Reflections with Oswald Chambers [August 13, 2014]

    08/14/2014 1:01:27 PM PDT · 7 of 14
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; GOP Poet; hosepipe; xzins; TXnMA; marron; metmom
    My reading is that to avoid quenching the Spirit Who indwells us we must have restraint in a crisis and trust Him.

    Indeed, especially in times of crisis, it is best to put our full trust in Him. That means not to trust ourselves too much, but to listen to the Spirit Who indwells us. There are times when it is simply best to kneel in prayer, then to stand up and "let go and let God" ....

    I do believe we are living in such times. The current crises are personal, sociocultural, and geopolitical in nature. The best thing to do under the circumstances is to live in God's Truth, in openness to His Holy Spirit.

    This sort of thing really does require self-restraint.... Plus you have to learn how to listen....

    Then start, and keep praying.

    May our Lord ever bless the United States of America, and you and all your dear ones.

    Thank you ever so much for your splendid insight, dearest sister in Christ!

  • Was Adam a Historical Person?

    08/10/2014 11:16:08 AM PDT · 13 of 15
    betty boop to RIghtwardHo; Yossarian; TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; xzins
    Actually, there are several theories of time (the Rainbow universe being one) that posit that time has no beginning so there would be no first.

    Indeed you are right about that, RIghtwardHo.

    But if there is no "first" in time, then "how can anything be what it is, and not some other way?" Or even, how explain that "anything is at all, why not nothing at all?"

    These are Leibniz's two great questions. To ask them has become unfashionable in our progressive times.

    The "eternal universe" model has many supporters across many intellectual disciplines, philosophic, scientific, and theological. Yet ultimately, as an accurate description of the real universe, it seems to suffer from profound logical defects.

    The first of which should be obvious: There is no human being on the face of this planet, now or ever, who has ever had the power of perspective that would enable him to see the universe in its temporal totality. [Only God sees that way.]

    I assert that "temporality" is a condition into which a human being is born, in midstream, or "in the middle" of an historical process, as it were. As such, he is part and participant of the very process which he purports to observe. Therefore, he is no "sovereign" observer, occupying some Archimedean point outside the universe, for he is already wholly captured by it. The logic of his "position" breaks down entirely right there.

    Not only does does this "observer" not see the "before" and the "after" of his personal existence; but there is no logical way for him to claim any privileged insight into the workings of the All of which he is a mere part and participant in time.

    One cannot evade such questions by simply proclaiming the Eternal Universe model. Which I daresay is what the various "progressive" enthusiasts are proposing....

    But finally, such a conclusion flies in the face of common sense, and human experience. So there must be something "wrong" with it....

  • Smarter than Thou: Neil deGrasse Tyson and America’s nerd problem

    08/05/2014 12:57:06 PM PDT · 50 of 54
    betty boop to hosepipe
    A man, MUST, know his limitations" — Dirty Harry

    Qualification of this statement: Only a sane man is capable of recognizing that he has limitations.

    This qualification would definitely put our "sitting president" beyond the pale of sanity....

    And NOBODY seems to know what to do about it.

  • Smarter than Thou: Neil deGrasse Tyson and America’s nerd problem

    08/05/2014 10:28:39 AM PDT · 47 of 54
    betty boop to hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; MHGinTN; xzins; metmom; lefty-lie-spy; 2ndDivisionVet
    Science has become political.. and has political officers.. Ideology enforcers... Concept hitmen.. Mental figment Goons..

    Oh, I have no doubt that is true. The treatment a friend of mine received at The Journal of Theoretical Biology has removed all doubt. Among other things, the main "juror" evaluating my friend's submission was a "hired gun," a non-acedemic popular science writer who specializes in the promulgation of neo-Darwinst doctrine (arguably, as does this journal itself). On his recommendation, the submission was denied. [I actually got to read the rejection letter, which struck me as inane: The sender admitted he hadn't even read the work. Sigh....]

    As if that were not bad enough, when my friend's rejected paper was eventually published elsewhere, this juror followed him. The format in which the paper appeared allowed for follow-up "dialogue" in order to accommodate dissent. So the "juror" appeared, to show that my friend's ideas were incompatible with the findings of current, state-of-the-art science. [The paper in question was about a mathematical issue, assessing the algorithmic complexity of biological systems. I don't know why such a question should be regarded as irrelevant to biological questions, straight out of the gate....]

    An actual dialogue between the two of them ensued, and made the pages of the final book.

    In the end, I thought my friend whupped the other guy. Much to my gratification....

    HUGS dear 'pipe!

  • Smarter than Thou: Neil deGrasse Tyson and America’s nerd problem

    08/05/2014 8:22:00 AM PDT · 44 of 54
    betty boop to lefty-lie-spy; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; TXnMA; xzins; MHGinTN; YHAOS; metmom
    Neil is a good dude, but he does support anthropogenic global warming bullshit for some reason.

    If he did otherwise, his professional career would be over. That's the miserable point: How corrupt "peer-reviewed science" has become. And obtaining money — research grants, etc. — is the compulsive cause.

  • Smarter than Thou: Neil deGrasse Tyson and America’s nerd problem

    08/01/2014 12:25:53 PM PDT · 42 of 54
    betty boop to 2ndDivisionVet; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; marron; hosepipe; metmom; MHGinTN; xzins; YHAOS
    One part insecure hipsterism, one part unwarranted condescension, the two defining characteristics of self-professed nerds are (a) the belief that one can discover all of the secrets of human experience through differential equations and (b) the unlovely tendency to presume themselves to be smarter than everybody else in the world….

    Ironically enough, what Tyson and his acolytes have ended up doing is blurring the lines between politics, scholarship, and culture — thereby damaging all three…. Politics pretending to be science … is current, and it is chic….

    Perhaps the greatest trick the Left ever managed to play was to successfully sell the ancient and ubiquitous ideas of collectivism, lightly checked political power, and a permanent technocratic class as being “new,” and the radical notions of individual liberty, limited government, and distributed power as being “reactionary.” A century ago, Woodrow Wilson complained that the checks and balances instituted by the Founders were outdated because they had been contrived before the telephone was invented.

    Thank you so very much, 2ndDivisionVet, for posting this article by Charles C. W. Cooke. I read it last week in NR’s print edition, and thought it splendid.

    Some thoughts, FWTW:

    It ought to be completely obvious to all reasonable persons that not every human problem can be solved by differential equations, let alone the scientific method. (Which nowadays is still mainly on the Newtonian model, despite the revolutionary breakthroughs of General Relativity and Quantum physics, regarding which exactly nothing in Newtonian mechanics, based as it is on presuppositions of causal locality and direct observation, can comprehend or deal with.)

    As a student of history, what impresses me most is how little the universal questions regarding human nature and experience change over the millennia. The Neo-Darwinist account of “the evolution of species” neither anticipates, nor can answer, the following type of universally persistent human problems:

    … [I]t is evident that the primarily nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human experience superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, or all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality…. Experience of “things” is modeled on the subject–object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality that men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences. [Which happen to have phenomenal consequences, or effects.] Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. — Ellis Sandoz

    It should be obvious that the “nonphemonenal reality that men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences” is entirely beyond the reach of methodological science — whose reach extends only to phenomenal reality. What immediately comes to mind: (1) We have seven millennia [at least] of recorded human history that attest to the FACT that historical human beings, cross-culturally, that is to say universally, have ALWAYS been preoccupied by such questions. They happen to be the core questions of universal human experience/existence, in all cultures, at all times. [C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, referred to this more-or-less permanent configuration of human interest and experience as the Tao.] (2) It should also be clear that such understandings of human nature and the human condition cannot be reduced to the methods of scientific investigation, which depend on direct observation of objects selected/intended by a subjective consciousness. [See: the observer problem in quantum physics.] (3) WRT selective consciousness, Einstein remarked that, although the “inertial frames” of observers inevitably differ, ALL inertial frames are ultimately subject to the universal laws of physics.

    Which leads to the core question: Is there such a thing as “human nature?” Or are the Darwinists right, that nothing in biological nature is fixed, but all is in a process of random, purposeless change. Yet that purposeless change is usually supposed to be “progressive” change; that is to say, Nature, and the Natural Selection “she” imposes — though it operates by purely random means — is always wise enough to see to it that things are always just getting “better.” Therefore, man does not have a given nature (let alone a divinely-endowed one), but is always just a “work-in-progress,” leading to — WHAT???

    At this point I ask about this perplexing “WHAT”: Does it lead to devolution of the human to the level of beasts? Or to machines? Or to — perhaps — self-divinization?

    The Tysons of this world are very coy in answering such questions: It’s beyond the scope of science, don’t you know….

    But that doesn’t mean such questions go away. If you want them to go away, you have to kill, not only God, but all of human history first. (For the reason that human history is always and quite characteristically full of questions relating to man's relationship with the Divine.)

    So the strategy of the “science-y types” — who Charles Cooke points out probably could not tell you the temperature at which water boils — somehow become ersatz “experts” in science because they believe what such folks as Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Lewontin, et al., are spewing as “experts” in the scientific field. Such ignoramuses can just join up with the “nerd herd” and be just as fashionable and “hip” in their own way as Jay Z and Beyonce are in theirs….

    And dontcha know, but “fashion” seems to be everything these days. Truth be damned if it gets in the way of “fashionable” points of view.

    And that is the key insight that lies at the very heart of Left Progressivism: Finally, it is a cataclysmic revulsion against human nature and experience (history both personal and social).

    Must close, but not before noting two additional things: (1) I am definitely a "reactionary." (2) There's nothing "new" about Left Progressivism. Models of this sort of thing date back at least to 500 B.C. — that's what's actually OLD. That model's been tried repeatedly in human history, and it has never worked.

    Which brings me to Einstein's definition of insanity: To keep repeating what has been (unsuccessfully) done before on numerous occasions, expecting a new and different outcome from "the same old same old," THIS time....

    Thanks again for posting this great article, 2ndDivisionVet.

  • Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

    07/23/2014 3:16:12 PM PDT · 48 of 49
    betty boop to hosepipe; Graewoulf; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; marron; metmom; xzins; twyn1
    It’s a disgusting thing to witness..

    And I can't say you've "misreported" anything in what you observed, or wrote.

    There is an ancient Chinese proverb: "May you live in interesting times." Chinese who say this sort of thing are not wishing you well....

    Indeed, on the Chinese definition here, we Americans are all living in "interesting times." They are "interesting" because they seem to play out from forces beyond our control.

    But then, the Chinese, neither philosophically nor politically, have never set great store by the concept of the sacrosanct human individual....

    They have no truck with the imago Dei....

    Hugs, dear brother in Christ!

  • Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

    07/23/2014 2:46:03 PM PDT · 46 of 49
    betty boop to Graewoulf; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; hosepipe; marron; metmom; xzins; twyn1
    Without the Boehner Blank Checks, the Impeachment of Obama can continue, in Regular Order.

    I'm with you there, dear Graewoulf. Boehner seems allergic by nature to any concept of "regular order." Which, by the way in his line of work, is fully specified by the U.S. Constitution as a duty imposed on him as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    This document turns out to be so perspicacious in its line of thinking, so anticipatory of current breaking events, on matters re: the body politic. And yet, the Framers could not possibly have anticipated such developments in their own time. Notwithstanding it is amazing to me how well their vision anticipates and "mirrors" Truth as it unfolds in the human historical experience that we call America.

    And because they realized there were limits to their wisdom, the Framers put into the Constitution itself the very mode of its correction, should correction be needful under the pressure of evolving human events. It is called the Fifth Amendment....

    But to me, more important is the reach of Article II. It seems exactly nobody wants to impeach this president (for failure to execute his constitutional oath of office in every respect). Simply put, he will not sign legislation drafted by his soi-dissant political enemies, who merely seek to redress the fundamental disturbances of American order that have increasingly become visible under his tenancy in the Oval Office....

    In short, We the People have put the Consummate Thug in charge of the American future that our children and grandchildren will have to live in, and PAY for.....

    But it has been said that the Framers did not write for their time alone, but for the ages.

    If We the People can live with their wisdom, and propagate it, possibly all might work out "well" in the long run.

    But let's give the hard-core Progressive Left its final say here in the matter, as expressed so eloquently by that amazing, notable economist of gay persuasion, John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead."

    I gather this means Keynes suggested, in this profound statement, a really good excuse to hold a great, big party. Some sort of human mass bacchanalia, as it were.

    This puts him in the party of those who believe the universe will finally expunge itself, destroy itself, in a "BANG," not a in a "WHIMPER."

    I leave Keynes up to God.... HE will judge him, not me.

    Must run for now. Thank you so very much for writing, dear Graewoulf!

  • Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

    07/23/2014 12:21:22 PM PDT · 44 of 49
    betty boop to Graewoulf; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; hosepipe; marron; metmom; xzins; twyn1
    ...it is rumored that Oligarch Obama has a bid on a 4.7 Million Dollar House in California. If this is true, then that house should be known as “The House that Oligarch Boehner Built for Oligarch Obama.”

    I share your angst, Graewoulf. I can see what has happened, and what is still happening, under the administration of this pro forma, ersatz president.

    He's like a black hole, that inexorably draws the entire "universe" into its ego-maniacal maw....

    We can agree to acknowledge this. But the burning question remains: What are We the People going to do about it? We supposedly are sovereign under our constitutional system. So why are we seemingly so willing to trade our sovereignty for a mess of pottage?

    I have no clue what the explanation may be (other than my "bright, shiny object" theory); but this I know for sure: Culture precedes politics.

    If the culture is destroyed, do not expect "good government," let alone constitutional government, American-style.

    Which is why the progressive Left has devoted so much of its energy to undermining, to wrecking American culture over the past fifty years and more — through the mass media, the public schools and institutions of higher learning, the so-called "charities," and what passes for "the arts" these days....

    The American people must have been sleepwalking through all of this....

    I don't see any easy answers. What might work would be a restoration of the American public culture. But the elite movers-and-shakers would fight this tooth and nail, down to the last breath.

    So, what to do? I figure that all I can personally manage is to (1) Stand on firm ground; and (2) Tell the truth.

    If the problem is in the culture, then it almost doesn't matter what party you vote for, what candidates you elect. A deracinated, despiritualized popular culture cannot be expected to produce any kind of good political order.

    Plato noticed this problem, roughly five hundred years before the birth of Christ. He was right then, and he's still right now.

    Thank you so much for sharing your insights, Graewoulf!

  • Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

    07/23/2014 11:23:53 AM PDT · 40 of 49
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; hosepipe; marron; metmom; xzins; twyn1
    "All shine and no spine"

    Thank you, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words.

    Indeed, I'm convinced that Obama is best understood as a "bright, shiny object" whose purpose is to distract and divert attention from the pressing needs of our national polity. He is "the Venus eye that fascinates...."

    Some thoughts re: assessing the president's character.

    On that subject, Michael Goodwin, in last Sunday's New York Post (July 20, 2014), cites David Resnick, Obama's biographer, from his interview with Valerie Jarrett — perhaps the most influential advisor this president has. Quoting Ms. Jarrett:

    “I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is…. He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is…. He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”

    Yikes. Do other people feel as creeped out by these remarks as I do?

    Among other things, it seems Jarrett is suggesting that the Office of the President of the United States is actually beneath Obama's dignity.

    Jarrett is a very long-time aide to the president. It seems her job is to stoke 0's narcissism full-time. As if he needed any encouragement along such lines. So if he is a no-show on vital public affairs, it's just because he feels he has better things to do. Do not question the genius!!! He's smarter than you!!!

    Then I wonder how a man like this could ever obtain the presidency. Especially when his qualifications to hold the office are dubious, still suspect, in the first place.

    The legend has it Obama was born in Hawaii. Certain relatives in Kenya say he was born in Kenya — and claim they were present at the birth. The "Long-Form Birth Certificate" ultimately was produced, so to end the controversy. Somehow I suspect that Obama's political operators actually welcomed this controversy [and very likely may have fabricated the LFBC] — as a side show, a misdirection, a smoke screen, a way to "stir up the muck" — for it distracted all attention away from the question: Who was Obama's father? Plus the additional question: Who was Obama's mother? Can we find clues into Obama's' worldview and intentions by asking such questions?

    The question about the father is particularly relevant. Historically, traditionally, citizenship has been regarded as descending from the father, not the mother, regardless of the geographical location of the birth. [This would be the Jus sanguis theory of citizenship in international law.]

    On the basis of public records, it can reasonably be inferred: Barack Obama Senior was: A Kenyan national; a revolutionary anti-Colonialist; and devoted Marxist. He was also a fundamentalist Muslim.

    Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro evidently was a lady who had a penchant for third-world men of color who held radical/revolutionary political views. She married two of them — Obama and Soetoro. And like Obama, Soetoro was a fundamentalist Muslim. It seems fairly likely that Stanley Ann was herself a child of socialist parents.

    All of which is to suggest that a young boy growing up in this milieu during his most formative years would have had no inkling about American society and culture — I do not believe that is a subject taught in an Indonesian madrassa. And it appears his mother didn't have much sympathy for American order and values, so did not teach her son about such things.

    Yet this "boy" has been elected president by the majority of the American people not once, but twice. Despite the objective fact that his presidency has worked tirelessly — though overt actions, inactions, or covert ones — to undermine the historical liberties, institutions, and interests, both domestic and foreign, of the American people.

    Go figure!!! This result must have something to do with our fixation on the "bright, shiny object" — such as the watch a hypnotizing magician might use — whose sole purpose is to get us to suspend Reality in our consciences, to lull us out of any concerns we may have about the state of actual Reality in which we are totally rooted.... "The Venus Eye That Fascinates" stands before us.

    Or rather, is sitting in the Oval Office.

    Time to stop for now. Now, I shall just sit back and await the onslaught of screaming meemies coming out of the wordwork, to excoriate me for my "racist views," and to trivialize public discourse down to the level of complete insensibility and incomprehensibility.

    But that's okay. Such people never grasp the main point anyway. Indeed, they are the mob deployed to ensure that the main point cannot be engaged in any kind of rational manner. Yet I, as a Christian, have to put up with these people — with as good a grace as I can muster, God willing.

    Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

  • Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

    07/21/2014 1:20:11 PM PDT · 33 of 49
    betty boop to servo1969; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; marron; hosepipe; metmom
    Read Marx and discover a mythology that is irreconcilable with any other narrative, including the Bible. Hang out in leftist internet environments, and you will discover a toxic bath of irrational hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition. You will discover an alternate vocabulary in which Jesus is a “dead Jew on a stick” or a “zombie” and any belief is an arbitrary sham, the equivalent of a recently invented “flying spaghetti monster.” You will discover historical revisionism that posits Nazism as a Christian denomination. You will discover a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization and American concepts of individual rights and law. You will discover a nihilist void, the kind of vacuum of meaning that nature abhors and that, all too often, history fills with the worst totalitarian nightmares, the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem.

    So, how does such vicious claptrap manage to find buy-in with supposedly rational human beings? It would seem this sort of ideological palaver, ostensibly designed to shape behavior, supports the “thinking” of a zombie, not of a self-conscious, rational human being. It’s as if a huge swath of the American public has voluntarily submitted itself to pre-frontal-cortex lobotomy, under the auspices and funding of the regnant State and all its reinforcing mechanisms. The lobotomized are then fully enabled to admire, and thrill over, the bright shiny object of their delight — “the Venus eye,” the “magic of the extreme,” as Hegel put it, [that] is “the charm that works for us … that fascinates even our foes and blinds them”….

    This president is all shine, and no spine. If he says “A,” then by now you should realize that what he really means/intends is to actually do “B.” And he usually manages to get to “B” by doing as little himself as possible. That is to say, he not only lies, but uses lies as shields to protect him against the consequences of his acts, or non-acts as the case may be, in advance.

    So, why does he have so many friends, fans, supporters, donors?

    There’s a loaded question! I constantly ask myself that question, and have spent a lot of time thinking through possible answers. FWIW, just a couple of stray thoughts.

    In navigating such troubled waters, I find an indispensable guide in Friedrich Nietzsche, who most American conservative and libertarian thinkers regard as one of the most nefarious “philosophers” of all time: He is widely deplored as the announcer of the effective “Death of God” as an historical fact.

    As a conservative down to my bones, I do not regard Nietzsche as my “enemy.” I do not regard him so much as a philosopher, rather as a world-class literary artist and astute observer of the intellectual and moral trends of his age. I see him as a suffering soul, all his life. He was brilliant — but died in an insane asylum of complications of syphyllis. I think of him as “the canary in the coal mine” of his age, there to warn us of the future of men and societies, should his vision prove correct. [Which boils down to: If there is no God, there is only unfettered human Will to Power….]

    What Nietzsche detracters always seem to leave out, in quoting him, is immediately after his statement that “God is dead,” he adds, “for we have killed him.”

    Nobody bothers to ask whether Nietzsche himself thought or believed that human beings could actually “kill” God. I strongly doubt that. He may have been “crazy,” but he wasn’t that crazy. I think his point was, the act of “killing God” is a personal act that does not in the least affect the Being of God, but only the order of one’s own personal humanity, ultimately, the order of one’s own soul. It represents an adamant closure of the soul to all spiritual or divine influences. I take this to mean that the loss of God implicates the loss of our own personal humanity, by cutting it off from its Source and Ground in Truth.

    I very much admire Thomas S. Hibbs’ reflections on this question:

    …Friederich Nietzsche wrote that autonomy and morality are incompatible with each other. What he had in mind was that, while morality is about being bound by and to some standard other than one’s own will, autonomy as self-rule could easily slide into self-expression and authenticity, aspirations governed by aesthetic rather than moral criteria.

    Here liberalism faces a quandary. If choice itself is the highest value, a self-justifying one, then there is nothing in light of which — no independent standard on the basis of which — we can distinguish between good and evil, noble and base, or better and worse choices. And that, as Nietzsche saw, is an apt and succinct statement of nihilism. — Thomas S. Hibbs, “Happy-Go-Lucky Nihilism,” National Review, July 21, 2014.

    I imagine such distinctions are lost on the folks who find in “our” president a “bright and shiny object” worthy of their delectation and ultimately slavish worship. Indeed, he is a fine example of “the Venus eye that fascinates.”

    But the fact remains, there is NOTHING about this guy that any other human being could possibly reliably depend on. He’s all shine and no spine.

    Only a fool could love him. But evidently, there are fools aplenty out there in American society. They are the lobotomized ones, already alluded to above.

    Never forget the “classic” definition of “fool”: The fool is any man who says in his heart, “There is no God.”

    There’s nothing “funny” about a fool. Bottom-line, a fool is a nihilist. But he has free-speech rights as much as you do….

    And that is why We the People find ourselves in such a quandary nowadays. Our culture is divided, riven in two. The cultural divide, it seems to me, is driven by disputes as to whether the foundation of personal, cultural, and sociopolitical order is to be found in (1) a moral code; or (2) an aesthetic code. The first is ever “objective” to one; the second gives one a license to elevate personal, subjective experiences/preferences of one’s self above any and all other extra-subjective, that is to say, “objective” standards.

    Must put a wrap on it for now. Thank you ever so much, servo1969, for posting this outstanding article by Danusha V. Goska.

    P.S.: I don’t know why it is, but it seems to me that it is the immigrants to the U.S. over the past century or so who are the most passionate defenders of the idea of American exceptionalism, of America’s foundational ideals.

    Three of my grandparents were foreign born, but all became naturalized American citizens, and raised American children. Between the two sets of grandparents, four of their eight children served in World War II, including my own mother — a natural-born American citizen of Polish descent — who recently passed away (June 1). She was buried with full military honors as a United States Navy Nurse Lieutenant having served four years in the South Pacific during WWII, where she tended not only our own “boys” fallen on the battlefield, but Japanese POWs as well. She was an amazing woman. R.I.P.

    The current stream of [illegal] immigrants is “a horse of a different color.” Or so it seems to me.

  • Open thread: Obama to deliver statement at 6:45 ET feigning interest in border crisis

    07/11/2014 1:25:15 PM PDT · 145 of 158
    betty boop to xzins; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; TXnMA; metmom
    I estimated the cost to be about 400 million a year....based on operational and pay/benefits costs of a force that large. That is a huge expense for any state, and Texas is no exception.

    Indeed, dear brother in Christ. I am sure the president is well aware of that fact.

    Trying to gain some perspective on this situation, would it be admissible for me to record the following observations?:

    (1) We are told to regard the president as a former professor of constitutional law; meaning, he is some kind of "expert" on the American Constitution — which he swore in his Presidential Oath of Office to protect, uphold, and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    (2) We had to wait for Obama himself to tell us that he personally regards the U.S. Constitution as a flawed document, in that it is only a charter of "negative liberties." Translating this rather Orwellian language, this means: The very foundation of American law, the Constitution, is "flawed" because it is a document that tells government what it can't do.

    Well jeepers, Mr. President. The entire point of the American Revolution was that government — the State of whatever form — had limits that it could not transgress because to do so would infringe on the natural — that is to say, unalienable — rights of American citizens.

    (3) The final target of the devil is always the destruction of the individual human soul. In this eternal battle, the soul's God-endowed inalienable rights are its greatest protector. But after that, protection comes from other structures in society; e.g., the family, local communities of faith and cooperation, the sovereign state of which one is a resident/citizen.

    When We the People ordained and established the United States of America, for the benefit of ourselves and our posterity, we conceded very few of our natural rights to the discretion/execution of the federal government. Indeed, "We" retained almost all personal rights unto ourselves. (See: the Ninth Amendment.)

    For further protection against the effects of Leviathan, the sovereign states themselves serve as mediating buffers between the individual and naked federal power. (See the Tenth Amendment.)

    So, if the several sovereign states should trash themselves via bad policy, this just plays into Obama's hands. The feds, you see, would just have to rush in to "fix" the "problem."

    And thereby make it ever so much worse....

    "The Other Side" is playing a very deep game here. And they have a very long time frame....

    Kinda reminds me of "someone"....

    Thanks so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

  • Open thread: Obama to deliver statement at 6:45 ET feigning interest in border crisis

    07/11/2014 11:18:31 AM PDT · 143 of 158
    betty boop to xzins; Right_in_Virginia; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; metmom; TXnMA; MHGinTN; YHAOS
    Yes, a governor can call up his own national guard. But, when it isn’t a federal call up, then the Fed doesn’t pay their costs (pay, benefits, operational costs, etc)...the state pays. That gets expensive very fast.... And, if the president doesn’t like it, then he can call them up and use them as he sees fit instead of as intended by that governor ...(but he pays).

    Thank you for this well-informed, timely, and judicious observation, dear brother in Christ.

    Rick Perry is no fool. (JMHO FWIW) Notwithstanding, I think the president is trying to play him.

    Just listening to some FReepers talk over the past few days, it seems that some part of the local conversation here is devoted to the premise that Rick Perry is grandstanding on the immigration issue, so to burnish his presidential credentials. They seem to reason that, were that not the case, Perry would have already sent the Texas National Guard to the border. But since he didn't, he's just doing political grandstanding.

    Of course, I imagine Rick Perry is aware of the same fact that you drew attention to, that it all boils down to a matter of "who pays."

    A cynic might say that the president refuses to do anything about border security (unless Congress caves on amnesty first; but even then you couldn't trust him to follow the law on that legislation either, if passed.)

    One gathers the president reasons: "So if Texas is being overrun by illegals — essentially arriving on Texas soil at my behest — then if Texas doesn't like it, let Texas deal with it." [And I'll sic Eric Holder on them if they do.]

    I suspect the administration would love to see Perry call out the Texas Guard. That would make the citizens of Texas the main underwriter of the costs of the president's failure to enforce the border. As you have pointed out, dear xzins, such costs get "very expensive very fast."

    Texas would go bankrupt in short order. From the president's perspective, this would be just dandy. Texas, in his view, is a conservative state that will not cave to his megalomaniacal "presidential vision" of mass cultural transformation. So, he reasons, "if they oppose me, let them destroy themselves. Opposition will not be tolerated."

    But it seems to me Perry is not going to bankrupt the citizens of Texas just to burnish his credentials as a presidential candidate in 2016.

    This is the very trap the president (or his alter ego Valerie Jarrett) is trying to lure him into. Or so it seems to me.

    Perry won't play that game: I think and believe he is a man of character, who is willing to "lead from the knees." That is, from the position of prayer.... He is no friend to injustice, and I very strongly doubt he can be "bought."

    Thank you ever so much for your splendid observations, dear brother in Christ!

  • Boehner: Why we must now sue the President

    07/06/2014 2:11:36 PM PDT · 48 of 59
    betty boop to Dilbert San Diego; Alamo-Girl; marron; TXnMA; hosepipe
    I’ve always heard the only legal remedy is the impeachment process.

    I'm no expert on such matters. But it's pretty clear to me that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are political crimes. There is a special provision in the Constitution — Article II, Section 4 — that stipulates that such political crimes are to be tried in the Senate. Not in the federal courts. This process is called "impeachment."

    The House must bring the articles of impeachment, as a sort of grand jury; the Senate is where the case is tried. Only the Senate can convict.

    So, why on earth does Speaker Boehner seem to be evading the clear Constitutional language here? Rather it seems he is trying to prosecute the President in the federal criminal courts instead of following the constitutional provision for such matters.

    The federal courts are not constituted to handle "political crimes." Moreover, it is dubious that Boehner or Congress would be found to have "standing" in this matter under the rules of the federal criminal courts.

    I hate to say it, but the GOP seems to like to evade the Constitution as much as liberal Democrats do. At least every now and then.

    But I think Boehner is definitely barking up the wrong tree; and I'd like an explanation as to why.

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/04/2014 9:24:17 AM PDT · 197 of 199
    betty boop to MHGinTN; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; hosepipe
    There is deep dimensional reality, as hinted at by passages such as the fifth chapter of Daniel.

    I so agree, dear brother in Christ! Yet we humans tend to see only the surface of things. Searching for the Depth of Reality is something few people ever do.

    But those who are so led discover a whole lot to "wonder" about, and thus much "processing" to do....

    Happy Independence Day, dear brother!

  • Industry Group: IRS Lost Email Story ‘Makes No Sense,’ Records Should Have Been Kept

    07/04/2014 9:10:59 AM PDT · 31 of 32
    betty boop to marron; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; TXnMA; metmom; xzins
    I have rather lost interest in politics over the last few years, as I have watched it become completely unmoored from reason and morality.

    I so agree. And surely you are right in saying "politics must rest upon a deeper foundation, a moral and spiritual foundation, and that this is now where the battle must be fought."

    I think the so-called Tea Party — which isn't an organized party at all — is trying to "fight" precisely on moral and spiritual grounds. And for their pains, they are equally detested by the "Progressive" Left and the GOP Establishment Right. A pox on both their houses!

    So what to do? I simply conclude it's just best to "walk with God and pray." To me as for you, "God becomes more real and present with each passing year."

    Happy Independence Day, dear brother in Christ!

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/03/2014 10:28:53 PM PDT · 195 of 199
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; TXnMA
    Whereas I can readily agree that all is flux (including knowledge in the process of becoming) because flux is the consequence of a time dimension, or if one prefers particle physics, energy — there is indeed, one and only one invariant. And that of course is God Himself.

    Yes, indeed, dearest sister in Christ!

    Yet this "flux" is neither "random," nor "chaotic." Rather, it seems to me it is God's chosen process for realizing His creation, which He designed to unfold in space and time; that is, in a manner such that paltry intelligences such as we humans have could grasp, and hopefully appreciate and understand, what God hath wrought....

    If we could see as He sees, we probably wouldn't notice any "flux" at all. :^)

    But we don't, and we can't.

    God does not "vary." His Logos — His Word, Alpha to Omega — does not "vary." Thus the "rules of the road" He laid down in the Beginning are invariant. The forms they may take in the "flux" are capable of variation. But there is a natural limit that kicks in where such forms vary too much outside the divine pattern/parameters laid down in the Beginning....

    My suspicion is there is some very deep mathematics, especially of the geometrical kind, involved here....

    Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

    It's an intriguing subject.

    Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your keen insights!

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/03/2014 4:18:24 PM PDT · 191 of 199
    betty boop to hosepipe
    When the “coming up hither stops”.. the stretching stops..

    Thank you ever so much, dearest brother in Christ, for your heartfelt testimony! I see matters that way, too.

    May God ever bless you! (And me.)

  • Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

    07/03/2014 4:14:18 PM PDT · 84 of 85
    betty boop to TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; editor-surveyor
    When it reaches the point that another (self-claimed) believer questions one's very roots of belief, what is left for one to say in one's own defense?

    Exactly NOTHING, dear brother in Christ!

    IMHO, FWIW.

    Such folk are not just questioning you, they are judging you. And the criterion of judgment that they use is the "correctness" of your understanding of Holy Scripture, as they see it.

    IOW, what they are implicitly saying is that your salvation depends on your "correct" understanding of Scripture, and not so much about how you live your life.

    Yet to me, a Christian life is not so much defined by what one "knows"; it is defined by how one lives — following Christ.

    Christ tells us to love our neighbor as ourself; to be a mediator of His peace, love, light, forgiveness, kindness, understanding, in faith and hope, into this world of mortality. He does not authorize us to be the "judge" of anything, let alone of our neighbor.

    Judgment is His exclusive privilege — to be exercised when He comes the next time, with fire in His eyes, and a flaming sword in His hand....

    That being the case, my best recommendation to all is to cultivate humility, or poverty of spirit. This is what gains a reward in Heaven. What one knows — or thinks one knows — is completely irrelevant on Judgment Day.

    Just my humble thoughts on the matter, FWIW.

    May the love and peace and mercy and light of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you always — you, and all your dear ones!

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/03/2014 2:55:28 PM PDT · 190 of 199
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; hosepipe; metmom; MHGinTN; YHAOS; xzins
    I have always preferred quantum field theory over quantum mechanics, though they have the same result. Fields — wave forms, geometry, etc. — make sense to me.

    Me, too. And also to Schrödinger; evidently to Bohm as well.

    What is fascinating to me, even eerie, is that I cannot but think that what we nowadays refer to as quantum field theory had already been articulated in the ancient world — by two eminent pre-Socratic thinkers, Anaximander [c. 610 B.C. – 546 B.C.], and Heraclitus [c. 535 B.C. – 475 B.C.] — and also by Plato himself [c. 429 B.C. – 347 B.C.], who seems clearly familiar with the ideas of his pre-Socratic predecessors (see: Plato's creation myth in Timaeus).

    Bohm specifically references Heraclitus (p. 61ff), but not Anaximander — though one expects that the former's thinking was substantially influenced by the latter's.

    As Eric Voegelin put it [in Order and History, Vol. 4, p. 174],

    Reality was experienced by Anaximander ... as a cosmic process in which things emerge from, and disappear into, the non-existence of the Apeiron. Things do not exist out of themselves, all at once and forever; they exist out of the ground to which they return. Hence, to exist means to participate in two modes of reality: (1) In the Apeiron as the timeless arche [lawful origin] of things and (2) in the ordered succession of things as the manifestation of the Apeiron in time.

    And Kenneth Keulman elaborates on Voegelin's insight, thusly:

    Voegelin contends that the Anaximandrian Apeiron — which he calls the `Ionian truth of the process' — is 'present in the background of consciousness when the later thinkers explore specific structures for the case of societies in history.' ... The symbol of the Apeiron as the Boundless, the Depth, serves as a polarity both of the cosmos and the psyche. The opposite polarity, the One of Plato [a/k/a, the God "Beyond," or Epikeina], stands as the noetically discoverable antipode of the Apeiron. It is the height as the Apeiron is the depth."

    Anaximander's Apeiron is defined as "the unlimited, indefinite, unbounded; it is the 'unlimited' source of all particular things. Because it transcends all limits, it is in principle undefinable." (Sounds like a "quantum field" to me!)

    Evidently picking up from there, it seems Heraclitus recognized that the essential nature of all existents in the natural world, including humans, was that of participation in a holonomic "flow" — holonomic from the Greek roots, holos, meaning "whole," and nomos, meaning "lawful" — as participants in an eternal process.

    RE: Heraclitus, Bohm comments:

    The notion that reality is to be understood as process is an ancient one, going back at least to Heraclitus, who said that everything flows....

    I regard the essence of the notion of process as given by the statement: Not only is everything changing, but all is flux. That is to say, what is is the process of becoming itself, while all objects, events, entities, conditions, structures, etc., are forms that can be abstracted from this process.

    The best image of process is perhaps that of the flowing of a stream, whose substance [as Heraclitus averred] is never the same. On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances....

    Of course, modern physics states that actual streams (e.g., of water) are composed of atoms, which are in turn composed of 'elementary particles,' such as electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. For a long time it was thought that these latter are the 'ultimate substance' of the whole of reality, and that all flowing movement, such as those of streams, must reduce to forms abstracted from the motions through space of collections of interacting particles. However, it has been found that even the 'elementary particles' can be created, annihilated, and transformed, and this indicates that not even these can be ultimate substances but, rather, that they too are relatively constant forms, abstracted from some deeper level of movement.

    One may suppose that this deeper level of movement may be analysable into yet finer particles which will perhaps turn out to be the ultimate substance of the whole of reality. However, the notion that all is flux, into which we are inquiring here, denies such a supposition. Rather, it implies that any describable event, object, entity, etc., is an abstraction from an unknown and undefinable totality of flowing movement. This means that no matter how far our knowledge of the laws of physics may go, the content of these laws will still deal with such abstractions, having only a relative independence of existence and independence of behaviour. So one will not be led to suppose that all properties of collections of objects, events, etc., will have to be explainable in terms of some knowable set of ultimate substances. At any stage, further properties of such collections may arise, whose ultimate ground is to be regarded as the unknown totality of the universal flux.

    Having discussed what the notion of process implies concerning the nature of reality, let us now consider how this notion should bear on the nature of knowledge. Clearly, to be consistent, one has to say that knowledge, too, is a process, an abstraction from the one total flux, which latter is therefore the ground both of reality and of knowledge of this reality. Of course, one may fairly readily verbalize such a notion, but in actual fact it is very difficult not to fall into the almost universal tendency to treat our knowledge as a set of basically fixed truths, and thus not of the nature of process (e.g., one may admit that knowledge is always changing but say that it is accumulative, thus implying that its basic elements are permanent truths which we have to discover). Indeed, even to assert any absolutely invariant element of knowledge (such as 'all is flux') is to establish in the field of knowledge something that is permanent; but if all is flux, then every part of knowledge must have its being as an abstracted form in the process of becoming, so that there can be no absolutely invariant elements of knowledge.

    Revolutionary words, these. They put the fundamental claim of science — that it is possible to have "certain" knowledge of anything, thus to give human beings effective instrumental control over nature — to the severest test....

    Anyhoot, I really like the book. :^) And hope you will too, dearest sister in Christ!

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/03/2014 9:15:55 AM PDT · 187 of 199
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; hosepipe; metmom; MHGinTN; YHAOS; xzins
    LOL dearest sister in Christ! The fact is, Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order is one of the most challenging and difficult books I have ever read. :^)

    I was over half way through it, when I realized that I just wasn't "getting it." So....I went back to the beginning, and started all over again from square one.

    In my experience, if you can figure out what Bohm is doing with the "rheomode," then anything subsequent to that discussion is easier to grasp.

    Oh, the rheomode, and what it is: It is Bohm's reconceptualization of language in terms of flow. He notes that ordinary language tends to reinforce the idea of the independence and autonomy of the object intended. IOW, a word denotes an object in a fixed and consistent way, while the intended object really doesn't possess those characteristics in nature. To use an analogy from quantum mechanics, ordinary language is like the preference for observing particles rather than waveforms. The rheomode is an attempt to reconceive language in terms of flow, or waveform.

    To me, what Bohm has done is a tour de force that helps one to understand natural processes in a radically new way. Quoting from its back cover:

    David Bohm [1917–1992] was one of the foremost scientific thinkers and philosophers of our time. Although deeply influenced by Einstein, he was also, more unusually for a scientist, inspired by mysticism.... In both science and philosophy, Bohm's main concern was with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular. In this classic work he develops a theory of quantum physics which treats the totality of existence as an unbroken whole.... Renowned physicist and theorist [he] was one of the most original thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century.

    I found Rosen's work enormously influential. I consider Bohm another truly "BIG" thinker who helps one see the universe in a whole, new, fresh way.

    I do hope you'll enjoy the book, dearest sister in Christ!

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/03/2014 8:36:45 AM PDT · 186 of 199
    betty boop to hosepipe
    Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. — Albert Einstein

    Another truly wise man....

    I agree with your assessment of the late Maya Angelou. It seems she was a master of counter-cultural jibberish.... Not a drop of wisdom there.

    Thanks so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/02/2014 7:52:23 AM PDT · 180 of 199
    betty boop to metmom; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; hosepipe; MHGinTN; xzins; YHAOS
    There is also an inherent arrogance in the person who is making the statement that he is an objective observer and that he is stating a fact.... In doing so, he makes the unspoken claim that he knows everything, that what he knows is correct, and that he knows he is correct.

    "Only the fool, fixed in his folly, thinks he turns the wheel on which he himself turns." — T. S. Eliot

    Thanks, dear sister in Christ, for your spot-on observations.

  • It’s time for evangelicals to come out for evolution

    07/02/2014 7:44:43 AM PDT · 179 of 199
    betty boop to Alamo-Girl; metmom; MHGinTN; TXnMA; hosepipe; xzins
    I would strongly recommend Rosen's "Life Itself" to those who cannot accept these insights from the philosophical or theological experts. Perhaps Rosen's math would convince them?

    Perhaps! Anyhoot, Rosen's Life Itself was a real eye-opener for me....

    Also, if one is interested in the truly BIG picture, I strongly recommend David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order....

    On a personal note, Attila's birthday is July 4th. So I sent him a copy of Bohm's work. While I was at it, I also got one for you. It's headed your way! I hope you will enjoy it!

    Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

  • Industry Group: IRS Lost Email Story ‘Makes No Sense,’ Records Should Have Been Kept

    07/01/2014 2:30:36 PM PDT · 28 of 32
    betty boop to marron; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; TXnMA; xzins; metmom
    ...this isn't America anymore, its Guatemala with color television.

    True enough, dear brother in Christ, as far as it goes.

    And yet, I am not as despondent about these developments as much as you seem to be.

    I have not given up HOPE — which is unshakeable, since God's Word cannot fail but will be fulfilled in the world of His creation.

    Our common American culture — whose roots are to be found in classical philosophy as perfected by the Judeo-Christian tradition — is that which promulgates and sustains us, and our "exceptional" civil order. We are a nation "under God." He will not abandon those who love Him.

    Rather, I believe He asks us to defend the very principles upon which our personal and civil order depends. And so, that is what we God-"fearing" people must do.

    It isn't any more complicated than that.

    Rather than imagine yourself as some kind of victim of processes beyond human control, just stand up for what you believe, to the best of your ability. And speak truth to (human) power as often as possible. That's all God asks of us.

    And then, we just leave the rest of it, the details, up to Him.

    The Lord works all things to the benefit of those who love Him.

    Assuredly, that includes YOU.

    As Pope John Paul II put it, "Be not afraid!" Christ asks us to "cross the threshold of hope" so to stand with Him....

    He is our very Life. He is our very Truth. He is our very Salvation. He is our "mediator" who conveys our mortal selves unto eternal life....

    Be not afraid! Be not depressed, nor disconsolate in any way! The Lord made a glorious creation, and called us to be principal participants of it.

    We humans are called as stewards of what God has wrought. Not "owners"; only principled participants with responsibilities as agents of God's Will and Purpose, here "below".... That is to say, from the standpoint of our mortality....

    In Christ's love and peace and light, my dear brother in Him!