"Done a Ton"

Yesterday -- January 28th -- I set out on a motorcycle ride that took me 160 miles around southeastern Arizona. If you care to track the venture, go to Google Earth or Virtual Earth and trace out this route:

• I-10 east out of Tucson
• SR-83 south from I-10 to Sonoita
• SR-82 east SR-90
• SR-90 north to I-10
• I-10 west to Tucson

The time spent on Interstate 10 was productive but not enjoyable. I do not much care for driving on the freeways. Here in Arizona the posted speed limit is 75 mph, which means people do 85 and higher. At one point I had the motorcycle up to 90 mph just to keep from getting run over by people on the road. The bike handled 90 mph admirably, but it's still faster than I care to ride.

On my way home, as I cut across Valencia Road near the airport, I trailed behind an old Volkswagen (a Karmen, I think, but not the coupe). Suddenly her brake lights went on and small scraps of rubber started spraying over the road. I thought she had hit a retread that had come off a truck, but it turned out her passenger side front tire shredded. She quickly pulled over to the side of the road. I looped around to help her.

She was a young girl, really ... 19 or 20. Absolutely no earthly idea how to change a tire. So I offered to do it for her and she gladly accepted. The spare for that car was one of those temporary "donut" tires, and was absurdly small. It had air in it, thankfully, and it worked, but I warned her to not drive fast nor hard on that tire, and to get it changed out as soon as she could. She was late for work, so she drove off.

Here's why I write this ... at one point she was on her cell phone with her father. She was telling him that someone had come to assist her. She said, "Well, this ..." and she paused. Were I 25 or even 30 she might have used the word "guy." But I'm not that young, of course, so she inserted the word "man." "Man" as in "older man." "Man" as in ancient beyond comprehension man.

I believe this was the first time that the harsh reality of this has hit me. I am now of the age that young women of that age -- 18 to 24 -- view me as incomprehensibly old and unquestionably not worthy of them. I'm not in the market for a woman, nor would I be looking for one that young even if I were, but still ...

Actually, I find it all pretty amusing.

My fantasy of sweeping Keira Knightly off her feet has been burst. I'm too old for her. :-)

"Pride and Prejudice"

My lovely bride and I went to see the movie "Pride and Prejudice" last evening. This was the one produced only recently and starring Keira Knightly as Elizabeth Bennett. It was a perfectly good movie with one exception: I could not stop comparing it to the 1995 production with Colin Firth.

I read a review of the 2005 version of this movie, and the reviewer's main point was summarized as "Good, but what was the point?" He likened it to remaking "Casablanca" or "The Godfather." The 1995 version set the standard; a standard which can't, in my estimation, be topped. So, as the reviewer wrote, "why bother?"

But that's not to say the movie was without its merits. The casting of Donald Sutherland as the elder Mr. Bennett was wonderful. Sutherland is a fine actor, and has grizzled features that made him particularly suited for this role. And this version of the movie smoothed out some of the language with modern phrasing, making it a touch easier to understand the meaning of some exchanges.

It's hard for me to be fair with anything that must be compared to the 1995 "Pride and Prejudice," since I'm such a fan of it. I own the DVD and have watched it several times. The buildup to the proposal from Darcy to Elizabeth, and her subsequent acceptance, was exquisitely done. And the manner in which the underlying honor of Darcy consumes his earlier stubborn pride was handled wonderfully.

I am, at my core, a romantic, I think. :-)

Nietzsche rode a Harley

Riding is a great deal of fun. I've put 133 miles on it so far, in two 60+ mile trips. I'm still exploring the more lonely roads of Pima County without venturing too far into the wilderness. I could venture much further afield if I wished to go out on the interstate. But I'm not much of a fan of riding on the freeway ... it's a bit boring and the big trucks are a bit disconcerting.

I discovered that northern Pima County, Arizona has lots of cotton fields. If you've ever seen or heard of "Pima Cotton," it was first developed here. Acres and acres of it.

* * *

It's been my experience that there's a good many people who call themselves "Christians" without any real understanding of what that means or implies. My guess is the Greek grandmaster was raised Eastern Orthodox, probably treats the faith as many Catholics do -- that is, "It's just something we do" -- and that's about it. He likely considers "being Christian" to be a kind of societal distinction; something that differentiates him from "Muslim" or "Jewish."

I've been wondering of late why I allow myself to get so bent out of shape over other people and their behavior. If we boil the Christian faith down to the nub, it's about the sincerity of our own heart and our relationship with Christ. If an army of people who call themselves "Christian" don't behave like one, why should it affect how I relate to Jesus? I honestly don't know why it does ... but it certainly does.

* * *

Some churches do serve real wine. I've read that they consider it to be a violation of the sacrament to serve juice. I think that's taking things a bit far. I can see why offering the sacraments with Pepsi and Tostitos might be questionable -- mostly because it would be hard to explain away the mocking tone of using Pepsi and Tostitos -- but I think the distinction between real wine and juice is stretching the point a bit. If I were in the mood to make trouble, I'd ask if they're certain the wine they serve is exactly the same as the wine in Jesus' day.

The Beast of Beelzebub

What's it like to drive? Have you done a ton up yet?

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

From wikipedia:

Nietzsche then analyzes the history of Christianity, finding it to be a progressively grosser distortion of the teachings of Jesus. He criticizes the early Christians for turning Jesus into a martyr and Jesus' life into a story of the redemption of mankind in order to gain power over the masses, finding them to be cowardly, vulgar, and resentful. He argues that Christianity had become more and more corrupted, as successive generations further misunderstood the life of Jesus. By the 19th century, Nietzsche concludes, Christianity had become so worldly as to be a parody of itself--a total inversion of a worldview which was, in the beginning, nihilistic.

Let me state again, I fully believe in Jesus as saviour (Nietzsche clearly did not) but I do not believe that The Church is accurately reflecting His teachings -- and so many Christians I have met are cowardly, vulgar and resentful. They are no more so than the rest of us, of humanity, but I expect the ratio to be a lot less than the rest of humanity (otherwise the Christian way of life is - well - no different from the non-Christian way of life). But I do not see that the ratio is less at all.

This is a real an active struggle in my response to modern Christianity -- I met a Greek Grandmaster on the chess server last week (you meet these people when they want something - ie. your rating points :-). We messaged and it transpired that we were both Christians. Later during the conversation I told him that some chess programmers had thought that he (the greek grandmaster) has used a chess computer (breaking the rules). His response was that he would spit on them and they should go to hell. Then I reminded him that it's not up to him who goes to hell but God, and he said "that is unfair and a shame".

Note: Analyzing his games it would appear that he did use a computer, but just to avoid blunders. He was a minor sub 2600 GM, but playing like a 2800.

I see this all the time on the 'net. He said "I am a Christian too". Really. One can be a Christian and act in such a way?

This might be a UK thing, but another real concern. My daughter had a friend for a sleepover last night, they were up til all hours - the little tykes - they eventually went to sleep around midnight. Her friend left this morning, picked up by her parents at 10am for Church. I heard the two girls talking at breakfast whilst I was washing up ..

My daughter "What do you like best about going to Church?"
Her friend "Drinking the wine"
My daughter "What's that like"
Her friend "It makes you feel all warm inside, not cold. That's the best bit, I wouldn't miss it".

At this point I chimed in:

"Surely they don't use real wine, it's just ribena juice or something right?"

Her friend "No it is real wine, but just a very small amount".

I'm not sure what my point is, but something is not right. Anyway, I will have to read some of the original works of Neitzsche, rather than taking Wikipedia's word for it.

+++

Contemplation of an infinite onion that is.

+++

I am listening to a song that says the average age of the combat soldier in WWII was 26 and it Vietnam it was 19.

One thing that you have maintained throughout and that I wholeheartedly agree with is this: we need external help to get out of this mess, we cannot do it on our own.

The Onion is or is not

I think I see the point you're making. You're saying that "reality" might be infinitely large, and therefore beyond our ability to ever achieve comprehension. Okay. In some ways I agree with that.

The point that I've been trying to make, and will continue to make, is that either God "exists" (in whatever infinite state you wish to imagine) or does not exist. But his existence isn't dependent on an individual's belief in it.

There is a strong undercurrent in this post-modern secular world to create in our minds a god that serves our purposes. There are many who hold that if I believe God exists, then he exists ... but only for me. Another person who does not believe that God exists means that God does not exist for that person.

That, of course, is absurd. God either exists -- again, in whatever supernatural form his existence takes -- or does not, regardless of what we may believe.

Your point ... if I understand it correctly ... is that the nature of God's existence, the very nature of God himself, is an infinite onion that's beyond our ability to reach a singular conclusion.

That's fine by me. But the onion (God) exists or does not, regardless of my belief in the onion.

* * *

Congratulations on reaching 3000 points.

Geek! :-)

Now go for 3100.

An Onion

Thanks for your view on the radio programme, yes I agree, the discussions on that show always come down to an historical analysis of people in the past who had big thoughts, but rarely (in fact never to my knowledge) do the panel contribute any original thoughts of their own. I still love it though, middle class folks intellectually masturbating, like the majority of bloggers I imagine. This particular show on relativism has encouraged me to look into Nietzsche and I will report back on that as I get to it !

You wrote:

But, as I've written before, our holding it as true or not true does not change the reality of it. It either is or is not; our perspective on it is irrelevant to that particular aspect of it.

Ok no quantum mechanics, but I am determined to if not at least challenge this view of yours (and all of humanities it seems) - to get my point across!

Your statement assumes something called "the reality of it", when struggling with what you mean I came to the conclusion that you and I both look at existence as An Onion. The difference is this ..

You believe that we start at some finite point distant from the centre of the onion, and we peel back layers and eventually we get at the middle - and there, at last, is the absolute truth, there is reality.

It occurred to me that I think of it like this ..

We start bang in the centre of the Onion and go outwards through layers and layers.

The problem then is this. I think that the Onion is infinitely large, so we never get to the last layer. Like Cher being flat in 2D, bumpy in 3D and only the Lord knows what in 4D.

Do you see my viewpoint here, without me using quantum mechanics do you see what I mean about absolute truth and reality with this analogy? I am not saying that I am right, but do you see where I am coming from? (The middle of an Onion out through an Infinity of layers).

Happy weekend pal.

+++

Oh, I followed your go-for-3000 advice on the chess server, and here we now have it ..

1 3000 tribbles
2 2924 CSMath
3 2883 Stranger
4 2868 Shredder
5 2852 ChopSticks

On the way tribbles broke the world record set by "deveraux" in November 2002, held for other three years, of 2978. Now at 3000 I think I will stop. This is an amazing feat judging by the number of messages of "congratulations" I have received from chess geeks all around the world - at that rareified level you win 1 point by beating a super-grandmaster-level-opponent, you lose 15 points by drawing and lose 30 points by losing. The first entity in chess to get to a 3000 rating, and it had to be a computer ! (Stuck under a desk in the middle of the UK :-)

Relativism?

This topic is, it seems, one that simply can't be discussed in any really coherent way. If one asserts that relativism is true, then one immediately invalidates relativism. On the other hand, the idea of "absolute truth" is something that just can't be proved. So all that's left is to discuss the historical thinking on the subject (such as this group did), or descend into the depths of philosophical gibberish.

But that doesn't mean people don't -- and haven't -- absorbed a kind of relativism in their thinking. It's all about us. The consequences of it have been, it seems to me, quite profound and quite negative. But I haven't the energy to argue about it.

The thought structure of mankind seems to be this:

• If one holds that A is truth
• Then one behaves in a certain way

For the Christian, the truth is a rather complex structure of assertions about God, Jesus, the historical reality of Jesus, and the supernatural implications of atonement and forgiveness. My point is simply this: we can't prove any of this. We simply hold it as true.

But, as I've written before, our holding it as true or not true does not change the reality of it. It either is or is not; our perspective on it is irrelevant to that particular aspect of it. (And please, don't bring quantum physics into the picture.)

* * *

The tone of the speakers in that programme seemed to be that the idea of "God" is a quaint historical thing, but clearly not applicable anymore.

Relativism

I love this - UK radio programme from yesterday. Sweet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml

If at some point you get one hour to listen to it I would very much appreciate any thoughts you have - it's very enjoyable !

RELATIVISM

"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own "ego"."

Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech given last June, showed that the issue of relativism is as contentious today as it was in Ancient Greece, when Plato took on the relativist stance of Protagoras. Relativism is a school of philosophical thought which holds to the idea that there are no absolute truths. Instead, truth is situated within different frameworks of understanding that are governed by our history, culture and critical perspective. Why has relativism so radically divided scholars and moral custodians over the centuries? How have its supporters answered to criticisms that it is inherently unethical? And if there are universal standards such as human rights, how do relativists defend culturally specific practices such as honour killings or female infanticide?

PS. Interesting that the Pope referred to "the ego". I didn't see the ego mentioned in The Bible and thought it was invented by a psychoanalyst. Amazing how a such a theory, one that would seem to be inherently linked with one's soul (which is why the Pope's reference strikes me) - has crept into mainstream religious minds - de jure acceptance.

We know what they are not

Well, I think I know what is NOT an example of a good Christian:

All the things you said of course .. (boastful, arrogant, etc)

But I would controversially add:

Not smug. (I'm saved - so boo ya!)
Not saying it is known to be 100% true. They cannot know that.
Not deviously trying to convert, but openly so. Not second guessing the other.

I wonder what you will do pal? How will the changes you are feeling manifest themselves in your behaviour?

+++

Katherine (my daughter) this evening said to me, after her bath "Daddy, all the sad things in my life are from mummy and Ellen, I want to come and live with you". Stunned. Is this me projecting onto my daughter? Should she come to live with me? Is that the right thing? How would I manage her living with me and me working? Would she not miss her mummy and sister? Would the courts allow it? What if I die? What is causing this right now? If I can't achieve this am I failing my daughter in some way?

We talked, I took her back to Alice's. She said "school helps". What does that mean? I am confused and a little bit scared. I am failing my daughter. I will pray for guidance.

Belief, Trust and Service

How these things are carried out -- what they look like -- is my primary struggle. Without some way to model myself after a good example, I'm left perplexed. This is not a new thing, is it? Parenting is largely an exercise of providing a living example to the children. Hopefully it's a good example, one that helps the child grow up and survive in the world. We go through life looking to others to help us understand how we might ourselves behave. One of the problems we have in today's world is that our notion of "role model" is so corrupted. My point here is that looking for examples is part of how we live, and it's very difficult to "get something right" if we try to figure it out completely on our own.

In my last post, what I was trying to get at was this:

• Belief -- belief not only in the existence of God, but also belief in some of the key attributes of God ... his goodness, his mercy, his greatness, his care for us individually.
• Trust -- trust that when all is said and done, God interest is in my best interest. That may not mean I have properity or comfort on earth, or even that I live long on earth. What I'm getting at here is something very personal, something that keeps the mind at peace when strife surrounds us. This is what Psalm 23 is all about.
• Service -- striving to life our lives so that all that we do is pleasing to God.

I won't pretend to fully comprehend any or all of those. I also won't claim to possess any of them in any measure that I would prefer.

Note: No, I don't think being a priest (or pastor, or whatever) is the highest form of service. That's not to say it's a bad service, just that it's not the ultimate form of service. Caring for the sick and dying in a hospice surely must be as high a service as being a minister.

I struggle with the picture I see in the world. I struggle when I see "Christians" being bitter and condemning, even though I'm the same way. I struggle when I'm told that I must raise my hands during worship, or act in a certain way to be a "true Christian." I struggle when I see arrogance and boastfulness in the name of Jesus.

I know I'm being horribly unfair. I can't know these people's hearts. But still, there's something just not right about external behavior that seems to run counter to the teachings of Jesus. And what I'm getting at is how much I yearn to see a good example of a believer in Christ, and to draw example and learning from that person.

They're probably all around me. But I'm too blind a person to see them.

What will be your response?

My you've been busy! First, thanks for your help on religious matters today and for your technical assistance for much of last week. It is very much appreciated.

+++

Faith gene - hmm. How can a complex human emotion be brought down to a single gene being present or not? Clearly religious propensity is a phenotypical attribute !!

Is this the logical fallacy?

+++

Yes I think the school coach analogy is better. I must say though that at school they used to try to get me to play rugby but I just wasn't built for it. I used to stand around on the wing and avoid as much physical contact as I could - was the coach wrong to tell me to engage?

You've made some very interesting comments. I indeed sense the struggle within you and wonder what will become of this struggle? When you write:

Our response is to believe Him, trust him and serve him

Okay what does this mean to you?

"believe Him" .. okay do you mean what He says in The Bible or through some other contact from Him? Both beg the question "how do you know that that is God's word?" Okay you have already mandated on a 3x5 that The Bible is the word of the creator of the universe, so I guess that you don't know that The Bible is his word, you just "make it so" to establish a framework for belief, which is great. I see of no other way of believing in something that is not self evident.

"trust Him" .. how does that manifest itself? Is it "I am going to put myself in a position of discomfort because I know that the Lord will see me through?" I cannot think what else trusting the Lord might mean, unless it is linked to "believing him" above.

"serve Him" .. the most interesting. People would say becoming a religious priest is the greatest service one can do for God. This is certainly what Immams believe. To you, is that the best way to serve God? By becoming a priest/rabbi/immam whatever?

How will these things manifest themself in you my good friend?! I am excited to see.

+++

Please say a prayer for Gary H, today he was told the news that he has stage 4 melanoma. Depending on how far it has spread, these are the average survival times:

Skin, lymph nodes, colon, or rectum: 13 months
Lungs: 8 months
Liver, brain, or bone: 4 months

No doubt the consultant said "I am sorry" and looked at his shoes. You know it's bad when the consultant looks at his shoes. Still, what else can he do? Still, Gary may buck the odds and live forever.

But Some Structure is Needed ...

And here's the dilemma I'm struggling with ... some structure is needed, otherwise the temptation to simply create one's own religion is powerful. Look around ... particularly the New Age religions ... they're essentially a cafeteria style "faith." It's whatever one wants to believe, cobbled together in whatever way one wants, to form a religion tailored specifically for the individual.

And that's fine ... if God intended it that way. But if the Bible is to be believed -- even at the highest, most over-arching level -- that's not the way God intended it. There are key principles.

This gets back to my "3 x 5 card" exercise -- jot down on an index card the four or five key things about the Christian faith:

1. God exists, and is the sovereign creator of all
2. He has revealed himself: in nature, in Scripture and in Christ
3. Man is sinful by nature and is at odds with the Holy nature of God
4. God, in his mercy and grace, has bridged the gap with himself in Christ
5. Our response is to believe Him, trust him and serve him

That list is derived entirely from Scripture. So my anchor point really is the truthfulness of Scripture.

I'm a confused person ... can you tell? :-)

Knowing the Will of God

As we've discussed before, this is the hard thing, isn't it?

But it seems to me that it's really not that hard at the macro level. The Bible is pretty clear about the over-arching principles God has given us. Humility. Kindness. Mercy. Justice.

The difficulty comes when trying to discern the finer and finer points. Should I take this job? Should I marry this person?

I have no idea what the answer is. I don't really believe that God speaks in specifics to people: "John, wear your blue suit today at at lunch order the tuna." But it strikes me as reasonable that a life spent oriented towards the key principles will produce smaller actions aligned the same way. And perhaps the small stuff really doesn't matter much, provided the big stuff is adhered to.

Wrenching Re-Evaluation

That's me right now. The weight and burden of four years of studying the Christian theological framework for the sake of intellectual satisfaction is taking its toll. The issue in my mind isn't so much the truth (or untruth) of the doctrine, but rather my response to it.

A strong force within me is telling me to lift my eyes from the details at the fringe and use the gift that God has given me to find the essence -- the very core -- of it all. If you're familiar with "Pilgrim's Progress," I suspect this would equate to the period between the gate and the point where Christian is relieved of the burden from his back.

One thing in particular is resonating within me -- the specifics of practice is not the issue. Whether I raise my hands during worship, or sing loudly, or like contemporary music, or pray 15 minutes every night at 7:30pm ... all meaningless distractions. That's not to say that those who do those things are wrong, it's just that it may not be right for everyone.

I am the child in the football coach analogy in my previous post. God is the coach. I have for too long allowed myself to be distracted. The coach is there, patiently waiting for me to stop and turn my focus on him and his instructions. The coach knows his football, and he simply wants me to allow him to help me be better at it.

But first I must come to appreciate his role and the wisdom, and to be quiet and listen. Worrying about waving hands, saying specific prayers, or understanding the details of the "free will vs. predestination" would be like the child looking in the crowd for an idea what to do on the field.

"Faith Gene"

There are studies underway to isolate a gene "responsible for religious belief and faith." And, like the debate over Intelligent Design, I see the same logical fallacy:

The presence of X necessarily precludes the existence of Y.

Note: if I could remember my college logic course I'd recall the name the fallacy. But I can't recall much from 25 years ago.

The existence of a genetic component of religious faith does not, it seems to me, preclude the existence of God.

Two thousand years ago Paul established the Christian doctrine of "election" -- that is, God chooses those who will believe. It's a controversial doctrine -- very difficult to grasp -- and arguing the merits of it is not the point of this post. Let's imagine for the moment that it is correct ... that God has in fact chosen those who will have faith.

Would enabling that mechanism through a genetic component be contradictory to the doctrine itself? I think not.

Football Coach

Let's say you're coaching a children's football team. The objective is not simply for the kids to run around and have fun, but to improve their ability to play football. You, as coach, are quite knowledgable about football; the kids are not. Your interest is sincere; you truly want the best for the kids.

You instruct the kids to do X. The kids decide they'd rather do Y.

They are exercising their "free will" to do Y. They are making a hash of the game, but they are exercising their free will.

Now let's say you instruct the kids to X. The kids, who admire and respect you as coach, do X as you say.

Have they surrendered their free will simply because they did as they were told?

Or, stated differently, does free will imply contradiction of authority?

Interesting analogy

Maybe it works, but I am concerned about two things:

a) the potential loss of "free will" if we are only operating in accordance to anothers plan.
b) Who is God playing chess against? :-)

Most people seem reluctant to accept that they are pieces in a game. People want to feel in control of their own destinies, or at least they want the illusion of that control.

You've also hit the nail on the head when you question what actually is God's will, and how exactly does he want us to live? Well my view is that from the part of the new testament where Jesus says he wants two things, I would reverse the order, but that is not really the point ..

In Matthew 22

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So you're a chess piece moving around, using your own free will to go where you will on the board. I think this is ok, it does not break either of those two commandments per se, as long as you are doing your best to keep those commandments.

Note: The player with the pieces will not "win" the game if the pieces move according to their own will, but the end result for the pieces themselves is pretty much the same. Plus, who is God playing against? Satan?

Commandment #1 above is very personal, you need not tell a soul that you love God with all your heart. There is nothing to be gained by trying to"out-Christian" your fellow man, despite those who would wave their hands in Church, ah God Bless 'em :-) Thinking about that .. I could extend that to "those that go to Church". Is there anything stopping you from loving God without going to Church? This goes back to my view on the pleasant middle class social club that is my local Church, ah God Bless 'em :-)

#2 is the hard one, especially when your neighbour turns out to be Adolf Hitler. We touched on this with your views on Michael Moore. How do we stop moving as autonomous chess pieces and move as God intends, that is to love Mr.Moore? Or Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin Laden etc?

No-one can say that following Christianity is an easy option.

Cosmic Chessboard

I was listening to a radio preacher the other day, and he was speaking on the subject of "living in God's will" -- that is, allowing him to use us to his end rather than us taking things into our own hands. Rather than getting into the tangles of that topic ("How do we know God's will?"), what I want to do is post an analogy. Tell me if I'm nuts ...

Life is a like a big game of chess. We're the chess pieces, the Lord is the chess master. But unlike in normal chess, we have the opportunity to move on our own. God has a plan, but that plan is postponed as the pieces on the board -- us -- go about moving according to our view of things. That forces God to reassess the positions and work from there. It's only when the pieces on the board stop taking matters into their own hands that the chessmaster can play the game he originally intended.

Does that analogy work? Or is it cheesy?

Words sometimes fail me

Very very good - I'd not seen that. We humans just love our words. I wonder if there are enough words in the English language to communicate optimally? Or not enough? Or just the right amout?

On pedestrian, I've always thought that it's origins were from the latin for foot (ped) - it's association with mundacity; perhaps as on foot is not as fancy as travelling in style on a horse or carriage or something? I mean most folks have a foot (or two). Nothing special about a foot.

+++

My head is swimming with session cookies, http methods and java. What a day. I hope that you had a good trip.

+++

Animals do worry, well my fish do. They don't need money though, that's true. I'm living in a dream world.

+++

I wrote a song, well a tune, in the summer, and this weekend I heard my eight year old daughter nonchalently and unselfconsciously singing it while she was playing. An odd feeling, a very good one though :-)

Rules for Writers

This may be something you've seen before ... but it's worth posting again because it's clever...

• Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
  
• Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
  
• And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
  
• It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
  
• Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
  
• Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
  
• Be more or less specific.
  
• Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
  
• Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
  
• No sentence fragments.
  
• Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
  
• Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
  
• Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
  
• One should NEVER generalize.
  
• Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
  
• Don't use no double negatives.
  
• Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
  
• One-word sentences? Eliminate.
  
• Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
  
• The passive voice is to be ignored.
  
• Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
  
• Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
  
• Kill all exclamation points!!!
  
• Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
  
• Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas.
  
• Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
  
• Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
  
• If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
  
• Puns are for children, not groan readers.
  
• Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
  
• Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
  
• Who needs rhetorical questions?
  
• Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

And finally...

• Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
  

The Universe is a Napkin?

Well ... that explains a lot! :-)

I've heard other explantions of the universe being like a donut, or some other deviation of the traditional 3-D model. I suppose they're elegant, but my brain simply can't wrap around them. I can barely wrap my mind around the concept of infinity, and I'm not sure I really have a good grasp on that.

Face it, deep.thought -- you have a blogging partner who is rather pedestrian in his imagination.

Now there's a question -- where and how did the word "pedestrian" become a pejorative? Dictionary.com lists the third description as "undistinguished; ordinary." But they give no history. Let's go see what Wikipedia has to offer ...

... nope, nothing there on the origin of the use of the term as "undistinguished," though the article does mention that. There's a fascinating write-up there on the sport of "pedestrianism," which was quite the rage in England in the 18th and 19th centuries.

* * *

I am flying back to the D.C. area tomorrow (Monday).

Deathday/Birthday

Died: Galileo Galilei - January 8th 1642

300 years passed

Born: Stephen Hawking - January 8th 1942

A nice coincidence. Happy Birthday Stephen.

+++

I believe that short circuiting normal space to get from A to B quickly may be possible by travelling through a fourth spacial dimension at much less than the speed of light.

Eg. Grab a (essentially 2D) napkin; to travel from corner to corner might be 10 cm across the 2D flat surface, but if you bend the corners through 3D space and touch them together, then the distance between corner to corner across 3D space is not much at all. In fact, the points are congruent. Elevate the argument up one dimension and there is a chance to travel between two points in 3D space very quickly indeed. Just need a way to bend 3D space :-)

A Warp Skeptic

I don't know ... I'm skeptical of claims that warp speed may be possible. But I'm operating from a conventional mindset -- one that believes, for reasons I don't really know, that it's impossible for something with mass to travel faster than the speed of light. Something about its mass going to infinity.

But I'll be proved wrong.

And I'll miss my opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the investment boom.

It'll be the next "Google," and I'll miss it.

:-)

Warp engine?

I don't know, messy androids, you're a bad man !

+++

Space, the final frontier ?

Is this the genesis of a warp engine I see before me?

"Captain, I cannae do it, the engines won't hold together!!"

The Turing Test

You'd have to ask questions that weren't factual in nature. Questions like, "Who won the World cup in 1996" would be easy enough for a machine to answer, provided it properly understood the question. A question like this would be more likely to weed out the human from the machine:

Think of the color brown. Now tell me what emotion that reminds you of. Why do you feel that way?

But perhaps the rules of that Turing test require that only "yes" or "no" questions be asked.

* * *

I honestly do not believe that human brains are simply computers. There's something more. But I can't articulate what that "something" is. But I know it's there.

* * *

Androids don't dream of electric sheep. They know that if they did -- and if some weird, twisted part of them found electric sheep attractive -- they'd run the risk of having a nocturnal emission and rusting themselves out. Unless an android's emission was motor oil. Then I suppose it wouldn't rust. But it'd still be messy.

Is "intelligence" emotional?

Consider the famous "Turing test":

The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the "imitation game." It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game is for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is an A and Y is a B" or "X is a B and Y is an A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B.

When talking about the Turing Test today what is generally pictured in that the interrogator is connected to one person and one machine via a computer and therefore cannot see them. The task of the interrogator is to find out which of the two candidates is the machine, and which is the human only by asking them questions. If the machine can "fool" the interrogator, it is intelligent.

This test has been subject to different kinds of criticism and has been at the heart of many discussions in AI, philosophy and cognitive science for the past 50 years.

It's a really hard thing to program, I am not sure it's ever been achieved. Kind of like the android test in Blade Runner I guess.

Which brings me onto "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" - well, do they ?

++++

PS. Since using Firefox rather than Internet Explorer to write blog posts I have had no more networking troubles.

Where do you go from here?

Easy ... strive to crack 3,000!

* * *
Humans may not be able to keep up with computers in chess, but we'll never see the day that a computer is able to really appreciate a sunset, or comfort a frightened daughter, or write a truly original line of poetry, or inspire another person to love more.

It's interesting ... of all the attributes listed in the Bible that God cherishes in his people, things computers can do better just aren't part of it.

* * *
My lovely bride and I were discussing the "do men yearn for bad women" question. Interestingly enough, our definitions of "bad" differed significantly. Her definition was more closely aligned with yours, I think: "bad" = "mysterious or adventurous." I viewed women's attraction to "bad" men as flirting with the dangerous. She disagreed strongly. I conceded the point.

Anyway, I offered up the question whether men are attracted to "bad" women. She immediately came back with: "That's what the Angelina Jolie thing is all about."

I don't see Angelina Jolie as "bad." I used to see her as flat-out weird back when she was with Billy Bob Thornton, with the demonic overtones and the viles of each other's blood thing. Now she seems to have gone after the domestic role. It could be that I just have no attraction to Angelina Jolie. Never did. Never will.

I offered up Katherine Zeta Jones -- who I think is smoldering -- and Lisa said Jolie and Jones are pretty much cut from the same cloth.

I stopped trying to understand. I'm just not capable of it. :-)

Speaking of chess computers

Tonight at 21:05 GMT, after 18 months of slugging it out, my chess computer became #1 ranked in the world on the Internet Chess Server:

1 2900 tribbles
2 2896 CSMath
3 2856 Foe-hammer
4 2853 Shredder
5 2847 Good-Boy
6 2837 Orcrist
7 2821 workuta
8 2815 Kasparov
9 2813 Swimming
10 2803 ChopSticks
11 2801 Topalov
...
31133 total

Garry Kasparov, although retired last year, is still currently the highest ranked human in the world with a rating of 2815. Humans can no longer compete with the top computers at chess I am sad to say. Veselin Topalov (#11 above) is the second highest ranked human as we speak, the rest in that list are computers. Incidentally, Bobby Fischer got to a peak FIDE rating of 2785 in his career (and wikipedia agrees with this!).

In case you wondered, tribbles would kick Deep Blue's butt were he still playing. Murray - prove me wrong !

No mean feat being #1 in the world at anything - all that overclocking paid off. I'd just like to thank Vaclav Gerard Rajlich, MIT graduate, International Chess Master and author of the phenomenal chess engine called Rybka (Little Fish) for this honour. And AMD also for making some kick butt chips. To my opponents - well - that's the trouble with tribbles :-)

Am I a geek or what? Plus, where do I go from here? :-)

+++

You asked:

My question: is there a comparable attraction for men? We don't, as a general stereotype, yearn for bad women, do we?

We're probably no different in looking for a bit of excitement, but our fragile male ego's would shy short of something dangerous. For your normal red blooded american male the stereotype would be "Marilyn Monroe/Pamela Anderson". For geeks, the librarian Jodie Foster types :-)

Attraction is still mysterious.

+++

Congratulations on your first wikipedia entry, I think it's a marvellous read pal, may it be the first of many.

Wikipedia Knows All

According to Wikipedia:

Some versions state that the name HAL was derived by a one letter shift (see Caesar cipher) from the name IBM, although this has been denied by both Arthur C. Clarke and his fictional character Dr. Chandra, who states that "by now, any idiot should know that HAL stands for Heuristic ALgorithmic" (2010).

* * *

Do opposites attract? I think that's clearly true. Is it to their mutual advantage that they attract? Not always. In particular, I'm thinking of something that appears to be a universal, at least here in the United States. That is: women prefer bad men. For all their talk about wanting kind, considerate, sensitive men ... women are naturally inclined towards the rogue, the dangerous.

There really is some truth to that. Most women overcome this tendency and marry decent guys, but a lot -- a lot -- end up marrying men who are clearly and plainly not good. I've never understood it.

But if there is an element of our fallen nature that strives toward the forbidden (something I don't have any reason to doubt), then it makes some sense.

My question: is there a comparable attraction for men? We don't, as a general stereotype, yearn for bad women, do we?

* * *

Jodie Foster can do or say pretty much anything and I'd be fine with it. For whatever reason, I've always found her attractive. Hated the movie "Contact," though. Actually, I didn't like "Silence of the Lambs" either. Hey, maybe I don't have any reason to like Jodie Foster.

Is it okay to like her based solely on the fact she has a hint of the "librarian" look to her? Have I ever told you that I'm oddly attracted to the Donna Reed as the spinster librarian in "It's a Wonderful Life?" It's the glasses and the hair pulled up in a bun. Foul temptress ... :-)

* * *

My first Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaters%2C_West_Virginia

Attraction

Yeah I remember Bela, during my first divorce I was living in a flat with my then manager of all people. He was going through a bust up too and was learning to play the saxophone, he was a big Bela fan, good old Jon, he's retired now (although not from playing the sax - he's in at least two bands!) Married with kids.

I didn't know about FutureMan though. I like the rationale he's used to create his piano-like instrument, I imagine it might sound vaguely eastern, as eastern music often uses notes outside of the chromatic scale (but still within a simple mathematical ratio of a tone or semitone).

His method of taking two of the constants found to naturally occur in the universe reminds me of the immortal line from Jodi Foster in the movie "Contact", when they first pick up the alien broadcast. Commenting on the frequency of the broadcast the Foster character (Ellie) said:

"4.4623 Gigahertz. Hydrogen times Pi. Told ya."

My kind of woman.

Note: In the DVD bonus features section for this movie, Foster revealed that she had in actual fact no idea what the script meant during this scene. Ah well :-)

Which brings me onto attraction; what is it that encourages two people to be attracted to eachother? Is it the Cher/Olympia thing from Moonstruck ...

Rose: Do you love him, Loretta?
Loretta: Aw, ma, I love him awful.
Rose: Oh, that's too bad.

Do opposites attract? Is it that us fallen humans want things that are necessarily bad for ourselves?

+++

Thank you so much for the HAL-9000 chess game link. Frank Poole was such an awful player. Awesome that Kubrick would throw in a misquoted move by HAL as an indication of some problem with the comp. That's what I wish to believe anyway. Question: what's the relationship between HAL and IBM and was it merely a Clarke coincidence? (Well I know he claims it was).

+++

My New Years resolution is to try to bring my left leg back to life. I have an exercise regime and I'm going to stick to it. If it's still numb by the end of the year, well I'll be thankful that I'm here to try again next year :-)

Future Man

Have you ever heard of the band, "Bela Fleck and the Flecktones?" Their music is a blend of jazz and bluegrass. Bela Fleck plays banjo. Go figure. Actually, their music is pretty interesting, though I can only take so much of it at a time.

Anyway, their percussionist is Roy Wooten, otherwise known as Future Man. Though he's capable of playing a standard drum kit, his instrument of choice is an electronic drum synthesizer shaped like a guitar. He calls it a "SynthAxe Drumitar." He achieves remarkable sounds from it. Truly.

From Future Man's Wikipedia article comes this:

Future Man's interest in invention, combined with an inclination toward science and mathematics, has led him to experiment with creating other instruments. The most notable of these is the "RoyEl," a piano-like instrument with an arrangement of keys based on the periodic table. In an attempt to fuse music and nature, Future Man took the atomic number of each chemical element and multiplied them by powers of the golden ratio until obtaining a value corresponding to a frequency within the range of human hearing. This method, of course, leads to pitches that do not fall within the chromatic scale, producing unusual and dissonant sound.

I thought you might find that interesting or amusing, or both.

His Wikipedia writeup is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Future_Man_Wooten

HAL 9000 Chess

Without further comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poole_-_HAL_9000

My New Year's Resolution ...

... is not really a new one, but a desire to recommit to one I attempted last year:

To not give voice to negative or critical thoughts in my head

I'm operating from the thought that where the tongue goes, so goes the heart. This is a very Biblical concept. Somewhere up in the pastoral epistles they write of this ... Peter, Paul or Mary ... I'm not sure which. :-)

100 Things ...

I suspect #100 is one of those things that's technically a law, but one that's never enforced and few people know about. Like somewhere in the United States where it's illegal to walk a pet lobster on a leash. I have heard, however, that some music stores have banned the playing of the "Smoke on the Water" riff.

What is it about the British and sheds? Does every English home have a garden, and every garden a shed? I ask only because #81 reminded me of a Monty Python sketch where Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson was being interviewed. The focal point of the joke was that rather than being interviewed about his book, he was grilled about his "two sheds."

Whether I'm seeking a legacy, or just using this blog as an vehicle for expression, I don't know. There is a certain "anonymity" to blogging -- just enough to overcome inhibition. That's why I think e-mails are easier to write and send than hand-written letters. There's less intimacy to an e-mail.

I get almost no phone calls anymore on my work phone. Virtually all communication is done via e-mail and instant message. I wonder how common this is? Are you aware of any study done that has shown that work phone usage has dropped considerably since the adoption of e-mail and instant messaging?

Why folks blog

You asked:

I'm an extremely private person, yet I'm writing things here I'd never write in
a letter, or say in a phone conversation. Why do you suppose that is?

Well there are probably a number of reasons. For you sir, I would say that you are blogging as a means of working through some ideas in your head, clarifying things for yourself -- mixed with perhaps a little bit of catharsis. Me too. I think a stronger (but I'm not sure of that) motivation that I have is to leave some material for my daughter so that she can see how her daddy thought. I think you have this "legacy reason" also, but perhaps it's not so immediate?

The fact that I am blogging with someone who is a very deep thinker, is very crisp, can identify weaknesses in my arguments, has an excellent knowledge of scripture and can really explain things is not a small part of why I blog also.

There is a tension between some of our ideas too which helps, the fact that scientific discoveries will never lead to an explanation of "why?" is not something I fully accept, but in all probability I will have to accept in my lifetime.

100 things we didn't know this time last year

>> This << made me giggle.

And #61 lost his bet, but what a great idea !

I think I might try #81 myself.

Speaking of riffs, do you believe #100 ?

Good to have you around buddy boy :-)