Peace and pleasure

You asked:

What's that area like -- the area around Stonehenge and to the north? Is it barren and windswept? Or has it been developed? Are there trees, or only scrub and brush?

I've been to Stonehenge twice, once as a kid and once in 2001 to show a colleague around who was visiting from Germany. Maybe I'll get to go there again soon - the week of 27th Feb - as I am hosting four people from Croatia at work.

My recollection is that although the henge is near a major road - it is very barren and quiet. You can do a 360 degree swivel and see just grassland, maybe the odd copse, but pretty much just grass - slightly undulating, a bit like teletubbies land, or the default background of Windows XP :-) You feel like you are high up. You're not allowed to touch the stones now, as I kid I recall that I did. There is the usual guide telephone that you carry around as you tour Stonehenge.

+++

Today is the birthday of Nicolas Copernicus. Born in 1473, Copernicus envisioned the modern solar system model which explained the retrograde motion of the outer planets. Considering this was well over 530 years ago, and in a rather unenlightened time, his revolutionary thinking is astounding.

+++

I am wondering about the pursuit of peace over the pursuit of pleasure. Is this the secret to inner contentment and happiness? It's tied up with a lot of things I've mentioned in the blog:

1. Yoda (ok Buddha) saying don't get attached to things and physical pleasures
2. The Church enticing children with the pleasures of alcohol
3. Societal focus on more, more, more
4. Executives drawing down millions of dollars in share options

Are arguments (or wars) caused by one side wanting the pleasure of being right?

If we don't pursue sensual pleasure in this life then are we being anti-life? Not pursuing sensual pleasures in this life seems wholly valid if there is indeed an afterlife. But if there is not an afterlife then why not pursue pleasures in this life?

Thinking about it, the ultimate act of life, that of creating life, is a result of following sensual pleasure. So if we don't follow sensual pleasure then that would seem to lead to the end of life, and so possibly be "anti-life".

Sidebar: Humans are thought to reproduce sexually rather than asexually as sexual reproduction leads to less reinforcement of recessive genes, thus leading to more life.

Can we identify "the true" followers of Christ by observing those who are not pursuing the sensual pleasures of this life?

What would the world be like if our natures (and Hollywood) celebrated and sought peace rather than sensual pleasure?

Bible Verses that Resonate With Me

I have long found these two verses powerfully affecting:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
(Hebrews 12:1-2, NIV)

I sense a proper paraphrase might be:

Look, there's been a whole bunch before us who've done this. Yeah, I know it's hard but it's not impossible. So make the commitment in your mind and your heart and go as if this was a long race. Don't get discouraged early. Pace yourself, don't give up ... be patient and diligent. Need something to motivate you? Take a look at Jesus. He's the model. By comparison to what he endured, our challenges are minor. Plus, he's there to help us. Doubt that? Remember who is is and where he is right now.

Next year I'll probably see even more depth to the two verses. That's the beauty of the Bible ... the layers go down and down. There's significance and depth in nearly everything.

Grace and peace, brother.

Chalk Ridges Above Sarum

I think I mentioned before that I'm reading a book called "Sarum," which is a sweeping fictional account of England, set against the backdrop of actual historical events. It's set in the area where Salisbury is now, and the fictional town is called "Sarum."

The story starts in about 7,500 BC with a nomadic hunter in the north tunda setting out on a journey to the south. This would have been after the last ice age was coming to an end. This hunter, named "Hwll," was basing his journey south on the oral tradition of a land, far to the south, where it was warm and food was plentiful. He sets out with his mate and two children on what others in his small group of hunters think is a foolish mission. What Hwll did not know was that the ancient oral tradition was based on a time before the English Channel was formed. So he encounters the sea and his journey further south is thwarted. But the land "where the five rivers meet" (present day Salisbury) is, by comparison to the tundra from where he came, rich with food and game. So he settles there.

I am now up to about 800 AD. The Angles and the Saxons have established themselves on the island. The plague of Vikings has not yet occurred, nor has the land been conquered by the Normans. The days of Roman occupation are long over, but traces of that time remain.

It's a wonderful saga being created. Edward Rutherfurd is a good writer of this kind of fiction. (Though his later book "Forest" seemed forced and at times trite.)

But what animates my mind is not so much the people -- as good a portrait as is being painted -- but the geography of the region. This notion of the "chalk ridges" and the plateau that exists north of there and extends for miles just fascinates me. I've been to Winchester, of course, and I've seen the rolling hills of that region. But I never did venture west to see the area where Stonehenge exists.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Charles Darwin lived somewhere in this region -- to the south of England. There is another book I read called "The Origin" by Irving Stone, which was a historical novel of Darwin, from his adolescence through his travels on the HMS Beagle, to the development of his theory of natural selection and through to his death. The description of the area around his home made mention of a "chalk landscape."

For some reason -- and I can't explain it -- I'm utterly fascinated with the idea of vast open expanses of land. I've seen pictures of the sweeping tundra of northern Canada and I'm awestruck by it. Descriptions of the steppes of eastern Asia, where the land goes on forever and ever, stir my imagination. The idea of being out in the middle of such an expanse draws me and frightens me, all at the same time.

What's that area like -- the area around Stonehenge and to the north? Is it barren and windswept? Or has it been developed? Are there trees, or only scrub and brush?

My imagination is on fire.

Thank You

.. for your wonderful prayer. It is much appreciated.

Peace.

Prayer for K

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, gracious and giving, kind and just, merciful and holy, I ask you accept this prayer, humbly offered in the name of Christ Jesus.

May the light of love that is your very nature be something little K is able to understand and cling to, so that the turbulence around her does not toss her about, but rather let you be an anchor for her, a port in the storm, as best as she can understand it at her tender age.

May her father -- a good man, possessed of considerable gifts of intellect and grace -- be an instrument of your glory, so that he might be used by you to extend your love and goodness to K. Grant him all that you deem necessary to flow your love through him to K.

May her mother, in some way known only to you, come to understand the troubles that exist, and accept the healing touch of your almighty hand in her life.

Christ Jesus, lay your hand on K ... and allow the love that is yours and has always been yours flow to her, to touch her precious heart, and to comfort her. Assure her, dear Lord, that in you there is refuge, and peace, and hope, and love.

In your name, to your glory.

Amen

A Ton Forty

I was on the phone with my brother last night. That in itself is something of a newsworthy comment, given the rarity of our conversation. At any rate, he has a crotch-rocket Suzuki -- 900cc I think -- and has had it for 10 years now. I asked him, "What's the fastest you got that bike to?"

"One hundred forty miles an hour."

I thought, "That's crazy. You were a fool to do that."

He then offered, unprompted by me: "I realized that was crazy; it was too fast."

Gee ... ya think? :-)

* * *

My brother is a bit of an enigma. He's a flat-out genius, like you -- but in a different area. He's an incredibly gifted electrical engineer, and has a real aptitude for mechanical engineering as well. He lives alone in a small town in Tennessee, and has 600 acres of land on which he plans to build a remote house. He has his own observatory on top the mountain, with a retractable roof, a concrete slab six feet thick to dampen vibration, and a motorized mounting that rotates with the earth. He's not well gifted in the social graces, though neither am I but I get by.

Yet on the phone last night I detected a real warmth in his heart towards my aging parents; a warmth I did not know he possessed. It was quite touching. He also said he has been attending church for quite some time, which is something I never would have guessed.

It just goes to show -- one can't assume one knows the totality of the picture.

Cartoons

You wrote:

All this cartoon fuss is a clear indicator to me. We humans are odd creatures.

You won't get too much argument out of me on that point. It's not clear from your sentence which side of that furor you fall. For my part, I'm convinced the whole "outrage" thing is a purely manufactured thing on the part of the Muslims.

Despite all the talk about this being a war against "extreme" Islam only, I'm unconvinced. I do honestly believe we are at a crossroads in history. I believe what we are seeing is the first skirmish in a clash of civilizations. And they -- the Muslims -- are cleverly using all the devices of liberal western society against us: our civil protections; our pathetic sense of correctness; our worshipping at the altar of "diversity."

* * *

There has, of course, been many depictions of Jesus that are far, far more inflammatory than the cartoons that started all the fuss. Jesus in a jar of urine, or a painting of a naked Jesus with an erection. The novel "The DaVinci Code" is a long assault on Christ. Yet the Christian population does not rise up and burn buildings, threaten murder, or stage mass riots. Why not? I believe there are two reasons:

1. A vast majority of "Christians" are simply apathetic
2. A portion of Christians understand that the Truth of Christ is not diminished by slander; that Christ rises above any maligning; that regardless of the criticism or blasphemy, Christ remains Christ, now and forever.

Increasingly I fall into the second camp. This goes back to my "If A, then A" argument. What difference does it make, really, if someone paints an obscene picture of Jesus? Does that affect the magnificence of the actual Risen Christ? Not at all. Christ transcends all we may do. Pictures or cartoons don't change that.

That's not to say I like it or enjoy it; but I'm not compelled to riot or kill. Because ultimately it does not diminish Jesus. He can't be diminished. He simply is. I AM WHO I AM.

We'll see if I hold to this during the trials that come. I pray I do.

War

You wrote:

But I doubt in today's atmosphere that any sensible, reasonable debate can take place

Hmm, I guess I agree with this but I don't see it changing until the war starts. Each day I fear that the war is coming closer. All this cartoon fuss is a clear indicator to me. We humans are odd creatures.

The Torture Option

You wrote:

... he found himself dropping his previously high moral stance to save billions of lives.

I won't claim to understand all the angles to the debate, but this debate has been going on since long before 9/11. For example, President Lincoln did things during the American Civil War that were frowned upon as unconstitutional then, and would be well nigh impossible to pull off today. His justification was the saving of the union. To achieve that bigger objective, he sacrificed what he saw as smaller restrictions.

The counter-argument tends to be the "slippery slope" argument -- that is, once we get going down that path there's no stopping how far it will go. There's merit to the argument, but I'm not convinced all slipperly slopes are the same. In other words, I'm not sure it's valid to argue that since one might continue down a slipperly slope, one must never attempt to go down one ever.

No right minded person could rationally argue that if a million people could be saved by torturing a single terrorist to gain information, that we should not torture the terrorist. The unspoken premise of this, however, is that the torture will be effective. Clearly if we know with certainty that torturing a specific terrorist in a specific manner will unfailingly lead to clear information that will spare a million lives, then the case is clear and unambiguous.

Where things get fuzzy is if the efficacy of the action (torture) is not certain. That's where the slipperly slope lies. The real question, it seems to me, is not whether torture is ever warranted, but rather when it's warranted. Clearly it's not warranted in all cases. But where's the line?

That I do not know. But it strikes me that reasonable limits can be placed on it. But I doubt in today's atmosphere that any sensible, reasonable debate can take place. When anything short of full capitulation to the captives' demands is considered horrible torture by many on the left side of the political spectrum, any discussion about limits on what constitutes torture and what the limits are is simply pointless. It's all torture and should all be banned ... except if a Democrat is president. Then the rules change.

* * *

Thanks for the link to the Ender's Game story. IMDB.com shows that as a 2008 movie.

Ender's Game the Movie

One for you and the Mrs

http://www.frescopictures.com/movies/ender/index.html

The end of that article reminded me of the portrayal of Jonathan Archer, captain of the prequel Enterprise throughout Star Trek: Enterprise season 3.

At the end of season 2, the alien Xindi race had launched a probe that killed 7 million people in Florida, and rumour had it that this was a precursor to the next probe that would destroy the Earth completely.

So season 3 was all about finding and stopping the Xindi, and Archer found himself using hardline tactics to make a success of his mission, like robbing a friendly starship of their warp coil and torturing the enemy -- he found himself dropping his previously high moral stance to save billions of lives.

This was said to be, by the cast in the documentaries, related to america's response to 9/11.

Thoughts?

PS. Will there be a call for a ban on hunting following the Cheney incident?
PPS. I had guessed that might be your router solution :-) I'm glad you're fixed!

Router

Problem fixed ... I think. The solution? I bought a new router. The problem with the old router was that for whatever reason it would not accept the DHCP offered by the ISP. My Thinkpad, plugged directly into the cable modem, received and accepted the DHCP very quickly. The new router -- same make (Linksys) but different model -- now appears to accept the address. Further, the new firmware has a "DHCP release" and "DHCP renew" button, which the old one did not. Anyway, long story short, for now it appears to be working again.

Crossing my fingers ... :-)

Note: I'm assured by the fact that I hooked my hold router back up and could not get that darn thing to "see" the upstream link. I hooked the new one back in and **poof!** -- I had my upstream connection. For $50, I'll take it. Peace of mind, and all that.

Praying naturally

I have to say that praying comes much more easily to me in private than in the company of others.

There is something about humanity - we just can't resist grandstanding. All people pray to God equally but some are more equal than others?

Firmware

Things may fix themselves, it's amazing how often just giving something some space and then coming back to it works.

Alternatively, if the issue persists, you could try updating your Linksys firmware:

www.linksys.com/download

I _never_ update my firmware unless I have problem :-)

Prayer

I'll be the first to confess that I myself find prayer to be an often hard thing to comprehend. I agree that it is a "natural thing to do," but for some reason the naturalness of it seems to get short-circuited. Our fallen nature? The wiley temptation of our adversary? I don't know.

* * *

Pope John Paul II will, I think, hold a special place in history. It was only natural that his successor would find the shoes to be large and hard to fill. I would guess that in time Pope Benedict XVI will find his niche.

* * *

My LinkSys 2.4Ghz Wireless Broadband router has suddenly decided to stop accepting the DHCP address offered by my cable modem. The cable modem seems to be offering it just fine. I know this because when I plug my PC directly into the cable modem, I instantly get an IP address. But try as I might, the wireless router just won't seem to accept it. The router acts as a DHCP server downstream, and that function seems to work okay -- my PC gets its 192-dot address lickety-split. But since the router has no upstream address to the modem ... well, things are somewhat flat.

Here's what utterly perplexes me. This worked just last night. That router has no moving parts. One would think that if a piece of solid state circuitry worked at time t, then at time t+1 it would still work. Right?

The dark and cynical side of me believes that Comcast is doing something insidious to block the functioning of my router so they can sell me their "home networking" solution. But I can't imagine they'd be able to really tell that what's downstream from their modem is a NAT device ... could they? I thought the whole purpose of a NAT device was to utterly shield the Internet from knowing that there's anything behind the NAT address at all.

But what do I know. I'm a luddite at heart.

Praying

I guess prayer is a pretty strange thing ... a person, or group of people, speaking to an unseen diety, whom they think will help them (or someone else) in some way.

The thing about prayer though, is that it is a natural thing to do. I am sure that many people who have not actively decided to believe in God pray at some point, even those who ridicule it.

+++

I was in Italy this week and the folks there with whom I had dinner said that the previous Pope JP 2 was much loved and the new chappy is not doing so good.

Dismissing Prayer

I'm in Santa Fe right now, attending a western region team meeting and giving a 1 hour overview of WebSphere on z/OS. We're in a "working lunch" period, and I'm at a table full of FTSS folks. They started talking about a famous site here in Santa Fe, which is a cathedral with a spiral staircase. I haven't visited it, but others at the table related the story: that they had a tower in the cathedral and the ladder proved difficult to climb. So they prayed about it, and out of the blue came a carpenter who built the staircase. There is apparently no record of the carpenter buying the lumber anywhere; the carpenter simply vanished afterwards, and the engineering of the staircase is such that nobody can figure out how it supports itself. Or so goes the story.

But that's not the reason I'm posting this. The reason I'm posting this is because of the mocking tone and utter dismissal of prayer that was shared by seemingly everyone at the table. I shouldn't be so judgmental, I guess -- I suppose I might have shared the same attitude several years ago, and perhaps I still do today.

But it struck me.

Goodbye Netscape; Hello Firefox

I recently downloaded Netscape 8.1. They've burdened it with so much security checking and all that it kept locking up my machine. So I downloaded Firefox. It seems to work much better.

There. It's been said.

No. I won't go to Linux next. :-)

One Gee

Here is an interesting calculation which says that if you could travel with a constant acceleration of 1 Earth Gravity (1g) then you could get to the edge of the observable universe in 25 years of your time. Quite a few more years would have elapsed on Earth of course, but to an observer on Earth - you would never be travelling faster than the speed of light. I wonder what it is like to ride a beam of light? :-) 50 billion light years in 25 years without travelling faster than the speed of light! That's the Lorentz Contraction of distances when moving at relativistic speeds for ya.

Time elapsed on spaceship in years	Time elapsed on Earth in years	Distance travelled in lightyears	To
alpha	sinh(alpha)	cosh(alpha)- 1
0	0	0	Earth (starting point)
1	1.175	.5431
2	3.627	2.762
2.337	5.127	4.223	Proxima Cen
3.962	26.3	25.3	Vega
6.60	368	367	Pleiades
10.9	2.7×104	2.7×104	Centre of Milky Way
15.4	2.44×106	2.44×106	Andromeda galaxy
18.4	4.9×107	4.9×107	Virgo cluster
19.2	1.1×108	1.1×108	Coma cluster
25.3	5×1010	5×1010	Edge of observable Universe

Logic redux

I know you don't debate this anymore, but I got this off of slashdot this morning and it says in a much more succinct fashion what I have been saying:

Math theorems don't necessarily have to apply to the physical universe. The axioms on which the theorems are built are explicitly part of the theorems, leading to a logically self-consistent system. That is, you define the particular 'universe' you want to study by setting down axioms, then you prove things which you know are true about that universe because you've derived them in a logical fashion from those axioms you've set down.

This includes "If A, then A" of course.

The Width of a Circle

I imagine it like this, that I am attached to a piece of elastic which is anchored at the centre of the circle I am turning around. Centripetal force (which is due to my inertia - my unwillingness to change direction) is making me want to stretch the elastic and move in a straight line rather than a circle. To make the turn, the elastic must not stretch. If I lean towards the direction of the elastic, towards the middle of the circle, the wheels of the bike push back on the road counter balancing the outwards centripetal force on the elastic which keeps me in the turn (or keeps the elastic from stretching).

Flicking the handlebars in the opposite direction absolutely works because it forces you to lean into the corner to turn. If you steered into the corner then you would not lean into the corner, due to inertia your bike would want to lean the other way (by the same argument as above), in which case if you _were_ moving quickly you would fall off.

Also, for some reason turning the handle bars the other way and dropping into the turn is exciting. The potential danger comes if you drop too low and scrape the foot peg on the floor, which I have done many times!

I got to the point where I didn't even turn the handle bars the other way consciously, I just lifted out of the saddle slightly and shifted my body to the side I was turning, this made the bike fall into the corner, when you physically drop your body to one side, the handle bars turn in the counterintuitive direction automatically. You see the professional racers doing this in races all the time, I think you get to the point in riding where you imagine yourself as a counterweight whose job it is to pull a hunk of machinery in directions that modify where it naturally wants to go (which is in a straight line).

Nice pictures by the way.

Counterintuitive

A few months back, when I took the "Motorcycle Safety Foundation" course, one of the things the instructor kept talking about was "counter steering." By this he meant that when going into a curve, you push on the handlebar opposite the direction you want to go.

Huh?

I thought I had a sense of what he was talking about -- kinda -- but not really. In the weekend safety course we never got going much faster than 15 or 20 miles per hour. The "counter-steering" technique doesn't really show itself at those speeds.

Today I was tooling along and I came to a broad, sweeping curve in the road. So I thought I'd give this counter-steering thing a deliberate try. Sure enough ... if the curve was to the left, I would push on the left handlebar and the bike would lean and go left.

I'm sure there's some physics-geek explanation for this.

All I know is it works and it's a great way to hold and force a curve. That's a particularly good thing to know if in a curve I lose my confidence and think maybe I'm going too fast. Perhaps I am going to fast, but the thing to do is maintain pressure on the opposite handlebar.

Counterintuitive ... but it works.

Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona

This past Saturday I took another run down to Sonoita, Arizona. On the way back I snapped this picture of my motorcycle:

But the real picture is not of the motorcycle, or of the hill and sparse trees behind it, but the scene that unfolded behind me as I took this picture of the bike. Here's what was behind me:

A 1024 x 768 of that shot can be had here

Temptations of Satan

Wow ... a lot in that last post to digest. I'll try to summarize my views in response to your points.

• I do believe the Bible is correct; therefore, I do believe there are created spirtual beings that have chosen to rebel against God. These are known as "demons." There are created spirtual beings that have chosen to be obedient to God. These are angels. The first angel to rebel against God was Lucifer who, if I understand things correctly, is now generally referred to as "Satan."
• I'm not really clear on whether or not these fallen angels have the ability to take the form of humans. I don't think the Bible suggests that's true, but I could be wrong. I think it can be said with fair confidence that demons have the ability to tempt humans and influence their behavior.
• I believe that once someone has chosen Christ to be their saviour, then Satan can't get that person back. But Satan can still tempt that person to rebel against God. Some of the arrogance and spitefulness of people professing to be Christians might be just that. It might also be that someone professing to be a Christian isn't really one.
• I think it's important -- difficult, but important -- to understand that God is capable of possessing love and wrath at the same time. The fallen angels chose their path with the full knowledge of what they were doing. That is why it is commonly accepted that demons do not share in the salvation offered through Christ, and that they do not have the opportunity to be "born again." The wrath of God is upon them now. Does God then still love them? In some way I can't comprehend, I suppose so.
• The Bible seems to be pretty strong that "hating" in our eathly realm is an exercise not well suited to our fallen nature. When someone hates another, it's hard for me to fathom how the true spirit of Christ can be in them. I count myself in the category of those who stands accused of failing to show the true spirit of Christ.
• I think it's altogether possible that Satan is able to tempt people into formenting hate in their hearts and thus set aside Christ-likeness. I suspect that is Satan's chief aim -- to thwart God's kingdom. Ultimately he can't and won't win; but by some mystery God permits it in our time.
• I am not the right person to discuss this with ... I am weak in too many areas to do justice to this topic.

At the gut level I suspect the tension and difficulty in that topic is reason enough to avoid trying to balance between righteous hate and love and to allow "vengeance to be God's" and not ours. But as I've stated before, I have no idea how to truly "love my enemy." I suspect it's not something we are capable of doing on our own. I suspect it's another in the category of "letting go and allowing God work through us." I'm not clear on what all that really entails, though.

Being There

Thanks for your advice pal, I just need to relax and put my trust in The Lord, and keep smiling of course - for my daughter :-)

Your description of walking on eggshells sounds like a nightmare. How many other children have to suffer these situations in silence, young children like you and my daughter who don't really have the emotional equipment to deal with the situation they find themselves in. The situation when the object of their trust is so -- unpredictable? Horrible. Adults fair enough I suppose, but children. Repercussions. Respice Finem.

I was thinking about the "Christians" who are boastful, arrogant, know-it-all and downright unpleasant, and how when I am exposed to them I feel further away from God. Now I am thinking along new lines. Here is my line of thinking ...

Satan is real (look if you sign up to The Bible you have to believe Satan exists)
Demons are real (same reason - note: also Angels are real)
Demons might walk the Earth in human form doing Satan's bidding (possible?)
The soul is real
Satan wants souls
Satan is getting all non-Christian souls by default
Satan wants _more_ souls
Satan is not going to get Christian souls as they are for God
What does Satan do?
Satan tries to make Christians turn away from Christianity by placing demons on Earth that pretend to be Christians. These Christians on the face of it do all the "right" things. They know their scripture well, they go to Church, they tithe, etc etc. But they show their true colours. They are extremely unpleasant characters. They hate a lot - they let their natures come out sometimes. If they are following the new covenant then they must hate themselves (ie. love your neighbour as you love yourself). Perhaps they are demons?

Am I being totally unrealistic and just looking for something that will allow me to dislike these people and still feel that I am keeping to the New Covenant? This sounds like the paranoid rantings of a mad man does it not? Demons abroad, lol. But is it happening? I don't really believe so, but if the world is like The Bible says it is - then it is possible. Satan must be attacking Christians, trying to turn them away at any and all opportunities - and what better way to do this than with a mole?

This new line of though allows me to say to these people "Get thee behind me Satan" and dismiss them. Is it ok to do that, it must be for they are merely demonic spawn of hell.

This line of thinking is not good I would suggest :-) But it seems quite Biblical. Question: Did Jesus pity Satan and love him? Are there any references for Jesus doing that (that you know of)?

Maybe this line of thinking is dangerous because maybe these people are not demons, maybe they are just people who followed my above line of reasoning and that allows them to hate, because they believe that they are hating demons? Maybe this is how the wagers of Jihad sleep at night?

Confused. Can you tell? :-)

In Response ...

You wrote, I respond:

Do you want all things? I'd just like some peace and happiness for my daughter, and to personally not be in pain.

No, I don't think I want all things, or everything, or even a lot of things. I think I want things similiar to you: some peace for my troubled mind; some sense of assurance I'm in God's grace; and to feel safe being a gentle person.

You wrote also:

What's it like to have to walk on eggshells and be on your best behaviour around a parent at all times, to approach everything as a political negotiation depending on the mood of the parent? To always have to be very polite and to live with emotional bullying?

That might have been the most painful aspect of my childhood -- the sense that I had to tread lightly at all times for fear that some action (or inaction) might cause a horrible emotional reaction. It was like a pall on the entire family structure.

The difference between my upbringing and the situation your daughter struggles with is that I had no present father, she does. You must never underestimate the value of you "being there" -- a safe harbour in an otherwise turbulent sea. Extending that metaphor, I had no place to put in to weather the storm. So I retreated into myself. And I built protective walls. Lots of them.

You speak of me "turning out okay." I suppose that's true, to some degree. I know in my heart I have no right to have had things turn out as well as they have, save for the divine guidance offered from above. That's not false piety speaking ... I honestly do feel that "there but by the grace of God go I."

You're walking a tough line -- being the strong, responsible parent while not forcing your daugher to choose between the two of you. Just be there ... drop all notions of trying to force some desired outcome and just be there. Our Lord will use you to achieve what he knows is best.

Again, you wrote:

On the sinning stuff from Romans 7 to 8, what are the worse sins or are all sins equally as bad?

That's a tricky question. Doctrinally, all sins are sins. Lately, I've come to view the magnitude of sins as a function of how much separation it forces between me and God. I suppose some might argue that drinking vodka is a sin, though personally I don't see that. It causes no particular sense of conviction in my heart, and I don't feel a sense of shame in approaching God after had a drink. Other things, though ... awful feelings of shame and guilt and wanting to keep distant. Those are sins in my life.

But even that's a tricky answer. A "sense of conviction" in my heart comes from the Holy Spirit, and the Bible is pretty clear that habitual sin will result in our hearts being "hardened," with the Spirit withdrawing a sense of conviction. So relying only on what I "feel" is a sin is probably not a good barometer. But it's the best barometer I have right now. It's helping me focus on the big things, which allows me to walk a step or two closer to God, which then helps me to focus on the more inward problems.

If that makes any sense. I'm not sure it does to me. That's my best shot at an answer.

Getting from Romans 7 to Romans 8 in my heart is a journey; a tough one. John Bunyan in "Pilgrim's Progress" devoted a considerable portion of his book to the time period between Christian's entering through the gate (accepting Christ) and reaching the place where the burden was lifted (truly letting go and trusting Christ). I'm thankful the Lord has made me aware that there is a journey to be made, even after the "I believe."

Pilgrims Progress

And after the transition from Romans 7 to 8.

Romans 8 31-32

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Do you want all things? I'd just like some peace and happiness for my daughter, and to personally not be in pain.

What's it like to have to walk on eggshells and be on your best behaviour around a parent at all times, to approach everything as a political negotiation depending on the mood of the parent? To always have to be very polite and to live with emotional bullying?

Was it like that for you? You turned out ok, is it so bad?

+++

A colleague of mine is taking a year out from the company, apparently salary goes down to 35%, but that might just be over here - and could also be negotiable I guess. If you did it, I am pretty sure that you would not return - but we shall see - good luck with the meeting.

+++

Did Colin Firth play a Mr Darcy? "Darcy" - I think I was being too gallic in unconsciously using it's roots of the French "D'Arcy", or "of Arcy" - somewhere to the North East of Paris. Vive !

+++

On the sinning stuff from Romans 7 to 8, what are the worse sins or are all sins equally as bad? From my experience it seems that the sins associated with sex are the worse - fornication. What's your view? And if we were paraplegic, or just a brain, what would our sexual sins be then?

With Extreme Prejudice

Random notes:

• I had no idea that "Done up a ton" meant going 100 miles per hour. But I guess that makes some sense. Traveling 100 miles in distance really isn't much of an accomplishment. Then, no ... I have not "done up a ton." I've come close, though: 90mph. The bike had more top end to it ... I could easily have cranked the throttle for another 20 mph. But 90 was fast enough, thank you very much.
• I don't know what D'Arcy following the name means. Care to fill me in?
• I can appreciate that the "Pride and Prejudice" genre doesn't appeal to you. I find that somewhere deep within me there's a romantic streak. I also like movies that operate at a slower, but not boring, tempo. I find I almost can't handle the typical action picture of today ... too much noise, too much motion, too much flashing bright light. It really hits a nerve somewhere deep within me.
• Sorry to hear about the troubles with the ex. I'm really at a loss to know what to say, other than do what you're doing ... I guess.
• Tomorrow I am having a chat with an ex-colleague of mine who I bumped into at the Las Vegas airport the other day. He's now an Enterprise Sales Manager (ESM) and somewhat of a high-flyer. But what was interesting was a comment he made, almost in passing: "I took a leave of absence from [our company]. Best thing I ever did. Really changed my perspective on things." So tomorrow I'm going to chat with him about what his thinking was before, during and after this leave of absence. I'm very much intrigued by what he did.
• Right now I'm wrestling with the transition implied when one reads from the end of Romans 7 into the beginning of Romans 8. It strikes me as probably what John Bunyan was writing about in "Pilgrim's Progress" where he created a time passage between "the wicket gate" and the hill where "the burden was relieved from his back." The concept implied in "Progress" (and Romans 7-leading to-8) runs counter to some contemporary evangelicals. I'll leave it at that.
• The route I rode last weekend may look barren in Google Earth, but it was truly beautiful to be at ground level. I love wide open grasslands with gently rolling hills.
• I'm re-reading a novel by Edward Rutherfurd called, "Sarum, the Novel of England." Sarum is the book's name for Salisbury, and the book traces that place's history from the last ice age up through the 1990's by weaving fictional characters among historical fact. I've been to Winchester, of course, but not to Stonehenge or Salisbury. The book is pretty good ... I'm now up to the 42 AD and the Romans.

Without Prejudice

"Pride & Prejudice" - I honestly think that I'm incapable of appreciating this type of work. I lack the understanding of social aires and graces. I am pretty analytical and left brain oriented, when I see that stuff I think a) it's for girls and b) I cannot understand it. But I will revisit it now that I know that you are so appreciative of the Firth D'Arcy and see if I can glean the subtle interplay between the characters.

I followed your route on the bike, Google Earth is quite amazing in that you can literally fly along said route one mile off of the ground, glancing left and right to appreciate the scenery. Although it did look pretty barren, kind of like what I imagine Mars to be ! Nice trip.

My ex-wife, the mother of my child is getting madder. She screams at me and our child jumps into my arms and cries because mummy is shouting at daddy. She's going to lose her kids one day - so sad. It's true that we make our beds and then we have to lie in them. I think her current state is partly because she is under pressure from her mother's illness. The latest is that her mother will be discharged from hospital to go and live with Alice (the ex) - in return for her mother buying them a bigger house to live in. I thought this might have been a great idea, but it turns out that neither of the children want this, as (broke) Tony (Alice's beau) is moving in also. The girls really don't like him. I watch with a mild detachment and try to keep my daughter sane. Thanks for your previous advice on this one pal :-)

Candlemass at Church today - my daughters last at that school, I was impressed by the singing from the congregation - some very good voices "belting it out". All Saints Church looked much smaller somehow.

Religion is good for your health - I read an article recently that said it had supporting evidence for this. Something in the lowering of cortisol levels through giving up worrying, and putting your trust in a deity. This has a correct ring to it.

Attractiveness and youth. I used to sit next to a guy at work - a silver haired "older" chap in his late fifties. He told me he felt like he was still 25 inside, it was just the mirror that had it wrong. The occasional works outing that ending up in an evening pub session, he was always hitting on much younger girls. I don't think he had much "luck". He was also married to a much younger lady. It's a commonly held belief that women are attracted to power and money- so during your rescue you could have used this to up your "attractive guy" quotient. Alternatively you could have rode off as soon as you realized that you were not in the running :-) Ah growing old, it's so natural. Let's hope we can do it, growing old is also a privilege. A marvellous thing you did to help said damsel anyway, bikers are such helpful folk I found that out from my years on two wheels. A very healthy community in general.

PS. I was under the belief that "ton up" was some UK expression for achieving the speed of 100 mph on a motorcyle, but I guess 100 miles in distance is just as good :-)

PPS. If you've ever been to court you may know the significance of the title of this append beyond aforementioned Darcy.

"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 :-)