Well, I'm dying for the last time in the Shakespeare Game (I mentioned it once a lont time ago) this semester. This class is just fun. I loved Shakespeare coming in, and so have appreciated the chance to read three plays with others who love Shakespeare, too.

Here's the final speech I posted:

What thou blushes at? Thine own shame. What makes thine knobby knees knock about? The sound of mine name.

Hamlet's words flow easier than mine own, and fit the time as well as any perfectly played melody.

Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?

I determined to know thine name, which I now declare is John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford.

You are right in saying that I am.

But, with the Dane, I am resolved to rest in the arms of the Almighty God. Certainly, you do not believe that I can be shaken, or frightened, or alarmed at this my death? Or at you my killer?

No, for I know that there is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.

And here, at my end, I will not struggle against the Almighty's providence. Nor will I shy away from my heart's desire! Indeed, your cackling at my passing seems to be misplaced, and to be hidden both from the light of faith and reason. Hear the words of the Philosopher:

For I deem that the true disciple of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men; they do not perceive that he is ever pursuing death and dying; and if this is true, why, having had the desire of death all his life long, should he repine at the arrival of that which he has been always pursuing and desiring?

No, I will not faint away from this my glorious entrance into the further life. The veil is lifting, soon I will behold a glorious light, to fill and pierce my soul eternally. For, unlike Socrates, I am entering into the Peace beyond time, the Tri-une God of Revelation:

That light doth so transform a man's whole bent
That never to another sight or thought
Would he surrender, with his own consent;

For everything the will has ever sought
Is gathered there, and there is every quest
Made perfect, which apart from it falls short.

You see, your act, though stemming from hate, works the mercy of the Lord upon my soul.

Yet, be warned the Providence of whom you are an instrument, and upon which I base my future hope is two edged. God dispenses Grace freely on those who beseech it, but it deals justice harshly on those who spurn this Grace!

And it will not be withheld forever, for now in my last moment, I take upon me the role of Margaret of Anjou, and speak prophecies regarding the failure of your low-born house. I can see in my mind's eye the fall of York from the crown, as Jesus once saw Satan fall from heaven. And my fellow Lancastrians, standing on Christ's own behalf for the true king of England, his political regent on this earth, are empowered to trample on you scorpion's and serpents. Such is your house! Such is your lowest (yet greatest): the ignoble Richard III is the very archetype of your morality! Therefore heed my words of caution and beware the ghosts of your past sins. The souls of those you've wronged will not be silent.

Nor will the God who sees the fall of his innocent sparrow.


As for the rest,

The rest is silence.
















Silent, that is, except for this! In the style of Eliot, I give helpful Footnotes:
1. Hamlet, 5.2.
2. Luke 22:70 (I use the words of Jesus not to blaspheme, but to indicate that while they understand who I am, it does not follow that I am worthy of death)
3. Hamlet, 5.2.
4. Plato, Phaedo.
5. Dante, Paradiso, XIII. 100 - 106. trans. Sayers (these lines run roughly)
6. Luke 10:18, 19.
7. Hamlet, 5.2.

(Bubbs quotes don't really translate into Blogger: bold italics are the person accusing me, and italics are the footnoted quotes.)

Today was a fun day for Libby and I. We got to spend quite a bit of time together, which is always a blessing. We also got to see some good art. Well, great art and good art. First,

"Now is the winter of our discontent
made glorious summer by this son of York."

Libby and I finished reading this play today. Wow. There is a lot to unpack from Richard III, and I am still barely beginning. It's a great play. I'm not sure why it's attractive, though. It is amazing how evil and justice are intertwined. The hump-back is little more than an instrument of God.

Tonight we also went and watched the Phantom of the Opera, which was at the dollar theater. That was an intense movie, and it has some interesting thoughts on evil in it, as well.

Curiously, both of these are about evil ugly men.

Today was a very good day with respect to birding. I didn't see any new birds, but boy did I see some cool ones, and all in an hour or two at La Mirada Park!

This afternoon, after work, I decided to drop by the park to see if an oriole I've been watching was still there. It's such a pretty bird that I go look at it at least once a week.

But, when I was walking towards the trees that it hangs out in (near the gym) I saw a giant white bird circling the lake in the park. I hot footed it over there to find out what it was, just in time to see it setting its enormous bulk into a sycamore on the far shore. My suspicions were growing, but when I reached the bottom of the tree, and gazed up, I was sure. It was an osprey! In La Mirada Park! Awesome!



Crows were unhappy about it, they kept dive bombing it, and anywhere it flew they followed. Some older gentlemen at the park say that they do see it from time to time fishing there. But I'm still flabergasted.

Other birds that Libby and I saw at the park (and most of them you can see, too, if you drop by) plus I'm updating this list as I see more:
1. Western Bluebird (there are some nest boxes in the park, so there are at least two pairs)
2. Cassin's Kingbird
3. Cedar Waxwing (spring)
4. Barn Swallow
5. Black-crowned Night Heron (We saw one of these eat a baby duck!)
6. Double-crested cormorant
7. Mallard ducks
8. Muscovy-mallard hybrid duck, plus other unique hybrids
9. Domestic Geese and ducks:
10. Chinese Domestic Goose
11. Greylag Goose
12. Mourning dove
13. Great-tailed grackle
14. Brewer's blackbird
15. House Sparrow
16. European Starling (rumor has it the Romans taught these starlings to speak like humans.
17. American Crow
18. American Coot
19. Rock Dove (feral domestic pigeons)
20. Band-tailed Pigeon (the largest pigeon in North America, a game bird with tasty flesh)
21. Sharp-shinned Hawk
22. Townsend's warbler
23. Wilson's Warbler
24. Ash-throated Flycatcher
25. Western tanager! (5.06.05)
26. Great blue heron
27. Green heron
28. Snowy Egret
29. Great Egret
30. That ol' Bullocks Oriole (spring)
31. That ol' Osprey
32. Black Pheobe
33. Ring necked Duck (a week in April)
34. White fronted goose (April, 05)
35. American Wigeon (Winter)



Other times we've gone we've seen lesser goldfinches and house finches (of course) plus mockingbirds, etc.

In the winter, there are a lot more ducks and geese in the lake: The wigeon, the ring-necked duck, a white-fronted goose, and chocolate runner at least.

You can also find, at varying times, Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets and Snowy Egrets.



La Mirada Park is cool!

(for image credits, right click on the images to see their source page)

The Badonkadonk!

I have tears in my eyes. Wrap your mind around this piece of engineering marvelry. Then read the reviews. Then, recall to your mind that this is called a "badonkadonk." Read a few more reviews, and then, again, consider the name. The "badonkadonk" is calling you!

It looks like a landcruiser from Return of the Jedi.

Well, we've certainly gotten a little less frequent in Blog posting. Probably just because we've gotten to a point where life is going so fast that it's hard to stop and reflect on it. Reflection is just absolutely prior to communication, and that's what this blog is.

Today Dustin, Luke, Lem, Phil and I went driving all over Southern California tux shopping. The thing is, Dustin's getting married, and he doesn't want us to show up in t-shirts and shorts. Personally, that seems a little absurd, but to each his own, you know?

First on the iternary was Friar Tux in Brea. That was a little hard to find, because its in some other Bridal store called Allusions Bridal, which is hardly evident. After defying a conditional argument (don't ask! it's dustin's fault!), we finally found it and made our way inside. Problem: $95.00 each, after a discount. What do people think their selling? Tuxedoes? Gosh! Lem enjoyed a little Rayman Bowling on his cell phone, and otherwise we mucked about while Dustin attempted a few little magical negotiation techniques. Finding these futile, we loaded back up in our car and scooted off to eat lunch at our traditional local eatery: Great Wall Mongolian BBQ on Harbor and Imperial.

Mongolian BBQ was awesome, we hadn't been there in a long time. I loaded up an egg roll with a wasabi-like horseradish sauce, revelling in the rolling burning tongues of flame that licked the insides of my sinus cavities. Ah, delightful torture! Oh the delicious flavors that can be found within the circumferance of a bowl! We ate until we were satisfied.

Now we decided to go back to the place where we got our tuxes for Phil's wedding. That place is, however, in Cerritos. So a half an hour later or so we finally found ourselves on the corner of Del Amo and Bellflower. We didn't get back till after 3:00, and we left around noon! Still, it was fun cruising through the streets of Southern California with the boyz. This other tux place is awesome. You should go there. They cut us a nice deal, $75.00 each. $20 less, and the tuxes are fine and dandy. If I remembered the name, I'd tell you. But I don't, so ask Dustin or Phil. Maybe I'll add it in an update.

Now I'll be settin' to work on the ol' Thesis. Lord Byron, here I come!

I started doing observation hours at a new school today. I'm in a 4th grade class this time, and it's in a Christian school. The first day is always really exciting because I get to meet the kids, and they get to meet me, and they're usually really excited because there's a new face. Some funny things happened. Here's one of them...

During recess a couple of the girls came up to me, jumpropes in hand, to introduce themselves.
Jessica: My name is Jessica.
Nicole: And I'm Nicole.
Me: Well, hello Jessica and Nicole. It's nice to meet you both.
*pause*
Jessica: I like eggs.

And I like you, Jessica.

William Dembski was at Biola today talking about Intelligent Design, a movement in which he is a major mover and shaker. So, in celebration of his lectures, I'm posting the link to the Intelligence Design Blog.

And, buy his book!

Intelligent Design is one of the most important and most successful intellectual projects in our lifetime (it helped convinced Flew!). It was exciting to hear what he had to say in person.

An interesting article by Stanley Kurtz on gender studies, and the goals of radical feminism. I think that he probably mischaracterizes the feminist movement by lumping everyone in with this one group of radicals, but reading it with this in mind lends an interesting perspective.

Can We Make Boys and Girls Alike?

I think the stuff on kibutzes is interesting.

Some cool Google Map Locations:

Hoover Dam

The Statue of Liberty

Disneyland!

Here's Pokonobe Lodge on the northern end of Lake Mary. There are clouds, I think, over the cabin. (Click on the map to move it around: Mamie, Horseshoe, Twin, George, all the way to Duck is displayed in this resolution)

There are just a few of the cool places you can see using Google Maps and their new satellite feature. Check it out!

Update:

It turns out I was totally reinventing the wheel. Besides the ones I posted here I had searched for a bunch of other things. I probably found about half of what's on this blog. I can vouch for it being more fun if you look for it yourself, but this is the cheat sheet of cool American places seen from satellites and visible on Google Maps.

Google Sightseeing Blog

Grandpa Moothart and little Jonathan Phineas.

Grandma Moothart takes a turn with the little one.

Emily let me hold him while she signed some papers.

Introducing Jonathan Phineas Moothart, born at 12:03 last night. He's 6lb, 13.5oz. He's perfect, and everything he does is cute. You can check out Gabe's blog for more details; I'm sure he'll be updating it!

I'm going to be an aunt! Gabe and Emily went to the hospital to induce labor tonight. Apparantly, there's a bunch of stuff to do to get Emily ready, and the baby probably won't be born until the morning. So, tomorrow is going to be an exciting day for the Mootharts and Palmers. I'll take pictures of my adorable new niephew (whose gender will be known by that point) and post some on here. I can't wait! This baby is going to be the cutest. Well, actually, babies usually aren't that cute right after they're born, huh? All slimy and stuff. Well, it's true! Anyway, after a little while he/she is going to be so cute.

Pray for a safe and quick delivery.

I'll keep ya posted. :-)

This last week I read 220 pages of T.S. Eliot. It was an experience and a half. After finishing the Four Quartets, I felt that he had taught me something, somehow, that I had always wanted to know but never knew how to express. But I also had the impression that if someone asked me what I thought it was he had taught me, I could only tell them that it was what he had said, and refer them to the poem. That's unfortunate, but may be a drawback in my own experience of the truth. Poetry aims at communicating truths that otherwise we could never fully appreciate.

I love the Romantic Poets, and so I have studied them more fairly extensively. His commentary on their ideas, very present in the Quartets, especially, helped me understand them better than anything else I have ever read. I'll try and put some of the parrallels down here, show where he and Wordsworth have intersected. (I need a break from good ol' Richard II - a play that I realized yesterday has commentary on salvific theology. Whoa.)

From The Dry Salvages:

The moments of happiness - not the sense of well-being,
Fruition, fulfilment, security or affection,
Or even a very good dinner, but the sudden illumination -
We had the experience but missed the meaning,
And approach to the meaning restores the experience
In a different form, beyond any meaning
We can assign to happiness...

This can be taken as a commentary on Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey. It is the story of a man who is coming back to a place that he was years ago. When he arrives, he reflects on his prior experiences, and his intermediate experiences of the first experience that he had had in his memory.

Five years have passed; five summers, with the length
Of five long winters! and again I hear
These waters, rolling from their mountain-springs
With a sweet inland murmur...

Though absent long,
These forms of beauty have not been to me,
As is a landscape to a blind man's eye:
But oft, in lonely rooms, and mid the din
Of towns and cities, I have owed to them,
In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,
Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart,
And passing even into my purer mind
With tranquil restoration...

This is much longer than Eliot's little section, but Eliot's section is parasitic, in my view, on Wordsworth, and so that makes sense. This is not even the sum of it, it's just showing that there is a similarity. Wordsworth goes on to say that, it's not just a matter of feeling, but a matter of understanding. Revisiting the experiences is when we:

...are laid asleep
In body, and become a living soul:
While with an eye made quiet by the power
Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,
We see into the life of things.

I take sight for an image of understanding (uncontroversially, I think). See, as Eliot says, we have moved through the feeling of an experience to accessing the being of that experience, the truth of it. If you go back up and check the order, you'll see it flows in the order of Wordsworth's poem. So, that's so far.

Eliot's not done yet, though.

I have said before that
That the past experience revived in the meaning
Is not the experience of one life only
But of many generations - not forgetting
Something that is probably quite ineffable:
The backward look behind the assurance
Of recorded history, the backward half-look
Over the shoulder, towards the primitive terror.

It's hard not to keep going, but this has helped me to understand something that used to puzzle me in Wordsworth. What did he mean, I always wondered, when he said in returning to the silvan Wye, he came with knew knowledge. (this is still progressing chronologically through Tintern)

...For I have learned to
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth, but hearing oftentimes
The still sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue.

The connections here should be fairly plain. The backward glance is what has possessed Wordsworth with this "still sad music of humanity." A little context (which, Eliot, who was very familiar with William Wordsworth knew plainly) is that here Wordsworth is approaching the Wye (the river flowing above Tintern Abbey) with the knowledge imparted to him through the terrible experiences he had gone through five years before. He was visiting the Wye after the French Revolution and the Terror (ah ha! "the silent Terror" Eliot's line gains a new meaning!) had disillusioned him from his radical political mindset and faith in humanity's ability to progress, and he had lost his fiancee to the political rift between France and England that prohibited travel. He didn't see the daughter that she was pregnant with at the time for years after the poem was written. It's no surprise that he prefaces the above quotes with these lines:

...And so I dare to hope
Though changed, no doubt, from what I was, when first
I came among these hills; when like a roe
I bounded o'er the mountains, by the sides
Of the deep rivers, and the lonely streams,
Wherever nature fled; more like a man
Flying from something he dreads, than one
Who sought the thing he loved.

Well, this post has gotten long again. I hope that anyEliot fans unfamiliar with Wordsworth find it somewhat useful.

The Dry Salvages is a poem that really caught me up in the Incarnation. Which is just a good thing for a poem to do. Little Gidding also hits on the theme of memory and its proper use in the well-lived life. These lines struck me as excellent. I will end with them.

III
There are three conditions which often look alike
Yet differ completely, flourish in the same hedgerow:
Attatchment to self and to things and to persons, detatchment
From self and from things and from persons; and, growing between them,
indifference
Which resembles the others as death resembles life,
Being between two lifes - unflowering, between
The live and the dead nettle. This is the use of memory:
For liberation - not less of love but expanding of love beyond desire, and so
liberation
From the future as well as the past. Thus love of a country
Begins as attachment to our own field of action
And comes to find that action of little importance
Though never indifferent. History may be servitude,
History may be freedom. See, now they vanish,
The faces and places, with the self which, as it could, loved them,
To become renewed, transfigured, in another pattern.

I haven't posted anything in a while. So, I'm going to make up for my silence by making this very long and profound. I mean, you're going to walk away and go, "Hmmm" for like, hours.

...


...


Haha! April Fools!

Happy Easter!

I am going to bed, and tomorrow I have the pleasure of going to Church to celebrate the Resurrection. Lent is ended, the fast is over and the new day brings the hope and light of a life of hope. Now to feast. Now to acknowledge our deep joy, and to feel it, truly, by acknowledging the source of it.

And that source of hope is Jesus' resurrection.

Christ is risen!

Chesterton and An Anthrocentric God

Introduction

This post has an introduction, some remarks that preface my other remarks. Any post that has an introduction, that is worthy of a preface of any sort, is bound to be a long post. For that I apologize, but for the content of the post, after the preface anyway, I do not yet apologize, because I think it is very important and probably true.

The other thing I'd like to say as way of introduction is that these thoughts are G.K. Chesterton's first, and mine secondly. But, allow me to point out that, in truth, G.K. Chesterton's thoughts were the medievals' first, and his secondly, and his great creativity was a reflection of antiquity past. Since I am a lesser man than G.K. Chesterton, I can draw from his distillment and press onward. The other thinker I am consciously considering is Saint Thomas Aquinas, who explicitly argues for an anthrocentric world in the Summa Theologicae, very convincingly.

What I plan on arguing is that the world is anthrocentric, that God created it for man, and not only for man's existence basically (a marvelous thing, truly) but for man's happiness, a more marvelous thing than existence because it is about existing well. I intend to do so from a Christian, theistic perspective, unapologetically. If you want a little more basic perspective, read Chesterton's Orthodoxy. He presents what I take, fundamentally, to be an anthrocentric universe there, and calls it Fairy Land philosophy. I don't necessarily agree with Chesterton entirely, since I'm not entirely clear with how to take my thoughts on him yet. I'm writing this post because of the the book and because of a conversation.

The Cosmos' Anthrocentricity

I am not sure how to argue this most successfully, because I can see several semi-successful lines of argumentation, which convince me, but may not others. I hope that a reader will be critical and charitable.

God created the world. This premise is evident from Revelation, and very arguable from creation without revelation. I believe that it can be shown that the only sufficient explanation for the existence of the world must be a first mover, for several reasons, but it's not my task here to argue a cosmological argument. Several good cosmological arguments may be found in Aquinas' Summa Theologiae and in his Summa Contra Gentiles. They're at the beginning of the book. A good modern analytical commentator to read, who thinks that Aquinas (in an unexpected place) argues successfully for a necessary first being is Norman Kretzmann, in Metaphysics of Theism. I think the First Way is probably successful, and one MacDonald "Aquinas Parisitic Cosmological Argument" shows how to read it. I'm not sure it's parasitic, like he says, but he distinguishes the proper kind of causal chain for Aquinas to argue from. But, anyway, I digress. All that I want to show is that God has created the world, and we know this from Genesis.

Of creation, Man is the most significant part. This is, to me, plain. Man was created last, and was the most significant of God's creations because we manifest soul in a higher way than any other being. If I was a medieval this is all that I would need to say, because obviously the more capacities proper to being a person possessed by an immaterial being, the "more noble" the being would be. So, animals manifest some aspects of personhood, but not in a significant way, but obviously, God manifests all significant elements of personhood perfectly. Man has limitations God does not, but we can still manifest attributes of personality that no other being in the physical created order does, namely reason, and so we are most like God.

Also, from revelation, we possess the imago dei.

There is a chain of being, of sorts, in which less significant parts exist to actualize more significant parts. Is it a stretch to say that fertile soil exists so plants can grow in it? Is it a stretch to see great pastureland exists so grazing animals can live on it? Without any of these things, they would cease to be. Taking a creator as true, then it seems evident that each part exists so that the system continues to exist.

Man's telos is happiness. We all desire happiness more than anything else, Aristotle remarks. Consider it. Ask yourself why you do this or that, press yourself on the desires of your heart, and you will come to this same conclusion. Happiness is the only thing that we want for itself, and not for the sake of something else. I want to be happy, and I will sacrifice many things to reach this happiness. If all men want happiness, then it is reasonable to figure that we were made to be happy, because anything that tends towards some end exists to fulfill that end. A good example is a seed. A seed tends invariably (if the situation is correct) towards becoming a tree. The tendency of a seed can be analogized to the tendency of mankind. As a seed tends towards being a tree, so does man tend towards being a happy man. This is what Aristotle calls our telos, and this is a version of his function argument.

As highest being, creation must move to bring man happiness. So, if there is a chain of being, and man is at the peak of it, then this chain of being must move in the service of mankind. And if it moves to serve mankind, this is best accomplished (as we would expect to find in a designed structure) by bring man to find happiness.

Answers to Modern Difficulties

One, the world seems impersonal. But this is only because this is what we've been taught. I can't see any fact derived from natural science that does not have the potential to bring man happiness. It must bring the scientists who found it happiness, or they would not have sought after it in the first place, right? It's worth thinking about!

Two, the world doesn't make me happy, why should I expect that it's trying to? The world is a source of great joy, which can be found in more than the pleasures of the scientist. Because we think we understand the world, people cannot find anymore joy in it sometimes. But they should look up again, and wonder in the fact that it is so regular. Chesterton's attempt is to show that the world is wonderful in this fact: it is the unfamiliar familiar. Though we seem to know it so well, we have no reason to think that it will remain the way that it is. And if we expect that it will change in some unexpected manner at any moment, every moment that it remains the way it is is the most wonderful moment. And so we can take pleasure and find joy in the fact that apple trees produce apples, for it is a miracle.

His argument on this point is a disproof of the belief in natural laws governing the interaction of physical objects. He takes the route of Hume, and buys the riddle of induction. The only reason to believe that something will happen again is that it's happened before. But this is not knowledge, this is only supposition. Just because something happens repeatedly does not show that it will happen again. To know it will happen again, we must make a deductive proof, but this is impossible. These are his words on the theories of a scientist, "They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two somehow make up a comprehensible thing."

And so, it is not irrational to suppose that there is joy to be found in the mere fact that creation is continuing to exist, and that it is continuing to exist in a regular way. Looking at the world, again, with these eyes will enable us to see the world as a place that can bring us happiness.

The Mystery of God's Love

If we step back a bit and reevaluate all that I just said in this post thus far, it seems that fundamental fact I've belabored can be boiled down to something deeper: that it is God who desires our happiness and has done all to bring it about. If nature is moving to bring us happiness, it is because God has put it there and then pushed it in such a way that we can know it and find this joy.

But of course, now, like Chesterton, we have rediscovered Christianity. For didn't we damn ourselves in the beginning, when creation must have been the most wonderful? And didn't God condescend to earth and die for our redemption? Doesn't this show that God desires us to push us onto being what He has designed us to be? For the incarnation, atonement and resurrection provide eternal life, which in its weakest formulation is the avoidance of eternal pain, a major stumbling block towards finding happiness. But, really, we know that Eternal Life is much much more, it is the pursuit for eternity of happiness in the true wonder, God Himself. If nature is unpredictable, it is because there is an unknown God behind it that it is hinting at. And when in eternal glory, it will be God that we will be engaged in knowning. And this will be true bliss.

But, is God anthrocentric if the world is anthrocentric? Yes and no. This is the cosmological paradox portrayed by Dante. God both moves the world from the furthest sphere of heaven, and the cosmosrotates around God. For, though God seeks to make us happy, it is as an instrument to His own happiness. And this happiness He has never lacked. And here we have come upon a deeper mystery than the post has set out to answer, and so I have gone too far and will stop.

This article" from the National Reveiew is an indispensable guide for the morality of the Terri Schiavo case.

It is an interview with Robert George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton, and authority on Natural Law. I highly recommend reading it.

This last weekend I had a retreat with the Knights, a group designed to help foster service and intentional community. It was a time to focus our energies and develop a strategy for the future. We also spent some time in solitude and small group kinds of discussions. Phil has posted a full collection of these pictures on his blog.

The real joy of the trip for me, though, was getting the heck out of the city again. It was an adventure to get there, and it was full of sublime beauty when we saw it.



The plan for the way out was to set up camp before dark came. Unfortunately, the earliest we could leave was 3:00. By leaving at 3, we hoped to make the 2 and a half hour drive with just enough time left to spare to set up a tent and get a fire going for the dark hours. Besides, where we were going was on dirt roads that I hadn't been on in years. This was not a trip to an established campsite somewhere with running water and bathrooms, but a journey to uninhabited wastes without any luxuries. We were going to rough it, and finding our campsite was going to be tough if we couldn't see where we were going.

A couple of things happened that shook all that up, though. First, it rained. Friday afternoon it began to rain in buckets, and while it tapered off as the day drew on, the freeways felt the angst of the dark weather. The other unplanned eventuality was Spring Break. Ours is next week, and it hadn't occured to me that every one else had it at a different time than us. Apparently enough people did, because we didn't get to camp 'till 9. And that means we didn't get to the dirt roads until it was very dark, and we wound our way through sand and mud to get there hesitantly. I was driving my dad's truck, but the other car was just a sedan, and sometimes it was a bit dicey getting it through the wet sand. But we made it fine and hastened to establish our camp in the cold drizzle. We lit our fire and gathered around it until around 10, and then went to bed.

The morning brought with it a shock. I sat up to look out on green plains stretching in every direction. This year's heavy rains covered the desert in green and flowers. I had never seen so much green in the desert before. There were little succulent green plants everywhere, temporarily filling the gaps between scrubby bushes and tumbleweed. In a few months, it will all be brown again, but right now it is full of life.



The other neat feature of this part of the desert was all lava field we were camped in. The hardened black outcroppings contrasted sharply with the soft green life, and in doing so really made it more beautiful. It's as if they were complementary colors. Oh, and the lava was not eroded so much that you couldn't still see the ancient swirls and ripples in its surface. You really had the sense, sometimes, of walking around on top of ancient rivers, and our imaginations jumped to imagine the times when the desert was filled with fire.



Another natural blessing of the trip was that it stopped raining Friday night, and so we enjoyed pleasant weather for all of Saturday and Sunday. The wind picked up Saturday night, but it still beat the rain. Unfortunately, we had planned on rain, and so we all got pretty sunburned.

To find where we camped, you take the 15 North to the 40 East. You get off of the 40 onto the 66 somewhere before you've gone 30 miles, and there are only a few places you can do this. I think the best one is Hector Road, because it takes you the furthest. About 32 miles from Barstow, you come to a road heading South following three rows of large utility towers. Driving along them, eventually you come to flat places in the lava where you camp. On the right of you, as you head south on the dirt road, is the Hector Mine, and to the left is 29 Palms Marine Base.

I just talked with my younger brother, Phillip, on the phone this afternoon. He told me that he was chosen to go to Boys State this summer! It's a week long leadership program in June for high school Junior boys. It's like a mock-government thing. When they get there, they'll be divided into "cities" and they run for positions and such. His school, Calvary Chapel High School in Redlands, nominated 3 boys for this, but can only send one. One day last week, some men came to his school to interview the 3 boys separately. Phillip wore a suit and spoke with them about his views on flag burnings, which freedom he values the most, the importance of involvement in government and other related issues. And they liked him. So he gets to go--all expenses paid. I'm so proud of him; he's a good kid. And this is a great opportunity.

Gabe went to this when he was a Junior at the same high school. I have such cool brothers.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, everyone!

I foolishly forgot to wear any green this morning when I got ready. As I walked into the 2nd grade classroom where I'm doing some observation hours, I immediately realized my mistake. One boy, David, noticed right away that I was without any green. His eyes got really big and he started turning around to his friends saying, "Guys, Miss Libby isn't wearing green! We can pinch her!" Obviously, I get no respect from these kids. I solved the problem by using the Ellison cutter in the teacher's workroom to make a green-construction-paper-shamrock, and taping it on my shirt.

In other news: I taught them a lesson this morning on Adverbs. When the teacher told the class, "Miss Libby is going to teach you a lesson now, so I want you to all give her your full attention," they all started clapping for me as I walked to the front! It was pretty funny. Mrs. Ramos said, "Hey, how come you never clap for me?!"

The lesson itself went fairly well, I'd say. By the end, they seemed to have a pretty basic grasp of what an adverb is and how it can be used. There was still some confusion, and it was kind of hard for several of the students, but this was the first lesson they've ever had on adverbs so it was a new concept for them. It's comforting to know that they're going to get lots of practice with adverbs in the next couple of years. It's not as though I have to teach them everything about adverbs in my 35 minute lesson, and if they don't get it, I've ruined them for life. Mrs. Ramos said that she thought it was a good lesson and that it went well. So that was nice to hear.

This article from the Washington Post is an interesting perspective on what might be the first trickles of the dam of authoritarianism breaking in the Middle East. Let's hope so!

Hiking on the Santa Rosa Plateau was a lot of fun. We hiked over 10 and a half miles, and saw the majority of the accessible reserve.

The park surprised me in the variety of wildlands that it possesses in a small area. Depending on the steepness and size of the hills, as well as what side of the hill you're walking on, the dominant vegetations vary wildly. There's prairie-land, chaparral, oak woodland, and coastal sage scrub, all within what seems a rediculously small area. Each of these biomes contains unique wildlife, too.



We definitely liked the prairie the most. It feels so wide open and free. I just get the feeling that the earth is friendly in a place like that. Tall grass, low hills, it's the most beautiful kind of carpeting possible. Areas like that are really special, and I'm glad we got to spend the day there out-of-doors.

A close-up of our very own state flower: the California Poppy.

Hiking makes us happy.

It was very pretty. Lots of flowers and birds.

Jonathan and I went hiking at the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve yesterday. Here's a picture:

Guys, this is great. I had no idea there were such specific names for groups of animals. Some of my favorites:
-A prickle of Porcupines
-A crash of Rhinoceroses
-An exaltation of Larks
-A gulp of Cormorants (that's a great one! very fitting--they'll just swallow fish whole)
-A parliament of Owls
-An unkindness of Ravens (can you imagine? "Woah, did you see that huge unkindness of Ravens fly overhead?!")

Who knew?!

Shakespeare and the Dialectic

Shakespeare's style of writing is the most conducive to creating a dialectic that I think I've found. This stems from the complexity of his plays, and their power in drawing people into them.

Shakespeare has broad appeal, and he was so intelligent that he wrote characters that people would identify with because of the kind of people that they are. For example, Richard II is an idealist in Shakespeare's play (by the same name). His opponent, Henry Bolingbroke, is not. He is a pragmatist. Now, when I read Richard I thought, "This guy is so smart!" but people that I've been dialoguing with have the opposite reaction. "Richard is insane!"

If I try to convince someone that Richard is not insane, that will have to be done in a conversation, because there is no other way to effectively change their stirred intuitions. In fact, if I were to really want to convince them to believe me, I'd have to convince them that there is a deeper reality than we can see on the surface, and we'd start talking metaphysics. Shakespeare's text has created a dialect-pregnant situation.

I really appreciate the genius of a man who is able to do this, and, though I have never been taught this aspect of Shakespeare before, I think it may be his greatest accomplishment.

I just started a new job a few days ago. I'm a marketing assistant for The Academy. I call high school students, who have been recommended by Biola, to see if they're interested in coming to our summer leadership conference. Basically, I'm a telemarketer. I try not to call during dinner time, but sometimes it can't be helped.

I made calls for about an hour and a half this afternoon and I think I got three people to apply. At least, these three students were very interested in it. So that's good. It's easier to keep making calls if it feels productive.

Most people are willing to hear about The Academy, especially since we only call students with a strong academic record. But I talked to one father who was pretty annoyed at my calling. I called him first a few days ago to talk to his daughter. I told him a little about it and asked if he thought that would be something his daughter would be interestd in. He was kind of short with me and said, "Well, I guess you'll have to call back and ask her." So, I called back today and he answered again. I asked to speak with his daughter, and he said she wasn't at home. Before I could ask what a better time to call would be, he said, "Oh-I-have-to-go. Bye" *click* Something tells me it won't do any good to call them back.

I suppose I deserve a little bit of that for some stuff I did to a telemarketer who kept calling my home a couple of years ago. Story time: During the interterm of sophomore year (January 2003), my parents were gone for several days; so Gabe and I were holding down the fort and making sure Phillip and Abbey didn't burn it down. Anyway, during this time, we started getting calls from some telemarketer guy. At first we would just tell him that our parents weren't available to come to the phone. But he kept calling back every day. Often twice a day. I mean, it got to the point where we recognized his voice as soon as he said, "Hello." So the four of us had a meeting. And we talked about some ideas of things to say when he called. Creative things. I don't remember all the stuff we came up with, but here are a couple that we actually went through with. All four of us contributed to these ideas, but I was the one who ended up talking with him...

Conversation 7(or so):
Telemarketer: Hello, may I speak with Thomas Moothart, please?
Me: He's grounded. He isn't allowed to talk on the phone.
T: Uh, I'd like to speak with Mr. Moothart. Is he your father?
Me: Yes, he's my father. He likes to set a good example for us kids, so when he does something wrong, he grounds himself. He can't watch TV; and he can't come to the phone. I'm sorry.
T: Wow. Ok, I'll try back later.

Conversation 8 (or so):
Telemarketer: Hello, may I speak with Thomas Moothart, please?
Me: (not disguising my voice at all) This is Thomas.
T: Uh, may I speak with Mr. Moothart, please?
Me: I'm Mr. Moothart.
T: Well, um...
Me: It's the voice, isn't it? I'm sick of it! Nobody ever believes that I'm a man over the phone! *click*

Yeah. I'm pretty sure I deserve anything I get during this new job.

Hello, all.

I just wrote a little ditty on Augustine's disproof of astrology. I'd say it's a pretty clear cut argument.

Basically, there are cases where two people are born at the same time. This means that, if their lives are determined by the position of the stars at their birth, then they will have the same kind of life. In these cases, they didn't. So, astrology isn't true.

Another version of this argument that he puts forth is that of twins. Twins are born of the same mother, in some cases at almost exactly the same time (like Jacob and Esau). Yet they live very different lives! (like Jacob and Esau)

I am actually curious what the justification is for people who do ascribe to horoscopes. I can sort of understand the ancients believing in it, because they thought stars were self-moving movers. In other words, they thought they had souls. I think they thought this becuase there was no apparent cause for the regular motion of the heavens. This is because they thought the cause had to be present to the caused at all times. Anyway, if stars had souls I'd be more willing to believe they could influence things because soulish things have greater capacities for activity than non-soulish things. I hear tell some people still think stars have souls, but I haven't heard the arguments to support it, and obviously we can't accept the account that they demonstrate regular motion in the same way the ancients did, since the galaxy isn't earth-centered.

The other neat argument I read today in Augustine is about Genesis.

Basically, the argument is that for God to have created everything from nothing, it must not have been with a voice like the voice He spoke in the gospel "This is my son with whom I am well pleased" or with the voice like the one with which He spoke to Moses. Because, for His voice to be heard, it would have to be temporal, and time didn't exist until after He had spoken.

Which means that those Words must have been eternal in Him. And this corroborates John 1, in which it says about Jesus, "And the world was made through Him." Awesome, huh? The other thing he argues is that, in this read of Genesis, Beginning means the Word, which is nice because it seems to free us from temporal confusion, "What does in the beginning mean?, etc". So you could read Genesis this way:

"In the Word, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

It makes sense to me.

Another cool lighthouse picture from the same website:

I just finished watching The Sound of Music. What a classic. That is a great movie. It's got humor; it's got drama; it's got romance;... it's got...nuns. And Julie Andrews is my hero! She's so cool. Oh, here's a funny line from the movie: "I like rich people. I like the way they live....I like the way I live when I'm with them."

I watched it with my roommate, Bethany, and her boyfriend, Wade. Wade told us that there's a scene where the real Maria makes a cameo appearance! But he didn't tell us until after the movie was over, so we didn't notice her. Maybe next time...

I'm off to work. This weekend's going to be non-stop activity for me, and the sleep probability rating is showing a strong negative on 8 hours a night, and indicating possible all-nighters in the three day forecast.

Here's a really beautiful picture I found on weather.com.



Lighthouses are cool. This one is the Portland Head Lighthouse, in Cape Elizabeth, Main. The picture was taken on the first of this month!

The Lighthouse picture from submitted Weather.com photos

This is us at Phil and Alisha's wedding. 

Jonathan and I are taking a tennis class for P.E. We have homework due every Wednesday. For homework, we can do pretty much anything we want, (just so long as it has something to do with tennis) and we write down what it is we did on a 3x5 card. This week, we're learning how to serve. So, for homework, he and I watched this cool video about correct form in serving. You should watch it too. It'll make you a better tennis player. And a better person. Maybe; I'm actually not sure about that last part.

Xanga Time

external pressures have reduced me to a babbling xanga poster. this semester stinks! i don't have enough time! i'm tired and want to sleep but i cannot!

Thus ends this Xanga Moment.

Since we're posting about homework, I guess I'll share what I've been working on today. It's got nothing to do with Nietzche or Orientalism.

I have an assignment for my Curriculum class to design a Thematic Unit (actually, just part of one...most Thematic Units are much longer and could take a couple of months to complete), a week's worth of lesson plans (20 in all: 1 each day for math, science, language arts and social studies), all centered around a theme. I've chosen to do Pioneer American Life, and to use Little House on the Prairie as the basis for my lessons. Jonathan and I have been reading this book together lately. He helps me with my homework. Anyway, today I created a sort of skeleton for the Thematic Unit. I don't have any of the actual lessons written yet, but I've got a good start. This is what it looks like:

Pioneer American Life
Grade 3

Language Arts (Little House on the Prairie)
1. Ch. 1-3; Pretend you're the Ingalls' dog, Jack: write the story of crossing the creek from your perspective.
2. Ch. 4-6; Venn Diagram: Compare/Contrast life then with life now.
3. Ch. 7-8; Word Choice Activity
4. Ch. 9-11; Write an alternative ending to chapter 11. What would have happened if...
5. Ch. 12-14; Class discussion: Compare Mary/Laura, Pa/Mr. Edwards

Social Studies
1. Review map skills and geographical terms
2. Geography of the states that the Ingalls travelled through
3. Discuss the meaning of the term "Indian Territory"
4. Introduce the various North American Indian tribes
5. Have students choose a tribe that they'll write a one-page report on

Math (measurement)
1. Instruments of measurement
2. Measuring to build (a log cabin)
3. Measuring distance (of travel, for example)
4. Measuring to cook
5. Measuring to dig (a well)

Science
1. What is a prairie?
2. Variety of life on the prairie (begin putting things in broad categories)
3. Birds on the prairie
4. Small mammals on the prairie
5. Large mammals on the prairie

So, that's it! I'm having fun designing it, and I think it'll be fun to dig deeper into each lesson as well.

I have a lot of reading to do at the moment. I'm putting a lot of effort into this Senior Thesis of mine, and so I am reading a lot about it. This means that I need to take periodic short breaks or I just about go nuts becuase of the sheer quantity of reading I've been doing on one subject this weekend.

But, to take a break, I'll post about Nietzche, and tie it into some of the reading I've been doing for my thesis, which allows me to constructively work on two homework assignments at the same time, while on my blog, which provides for me a change of environment (to liven up the night!). This is: a pull question on Nietzche, which will be due at Mid Rags (I suppose that's coming closer and closer) and to process Edward Said, whose book, Orientalism, revolutionized the discussion of Orientalism. Orientalism is the study of the East, by the Westerners, and since my thesis has to do with Byron's mission to the Greeks (a Westerner going East) it's relevant to understanding how people might think of him thinking. The sum of what this paragraph is expressing for you, the reader, is that this is going to be a very long post and most of you will not read it. But, I've also supplied (in this paragraph) justification for writing it independent of your readership and that means you dont need to read it for me to write it! Gosh, what a great paragraph!

PQ: What is the appropriate Christian response to Nietzsche? Academically? Interpersonally?

Nietzche is fundamentally opposed to the Christian religion, reviling it continuously and explicitly with his pseudo-philosophical expressions of genius and angst. Therefore it is meet for Christians to develop a response for ministering to the minds of those people who hold to ideas put forth by Nietzche (whether or not they came to believe them through him or through modern post-modern movements) and to defend Christianity against his attacks, which means, at least for Biola students, holding up at least a foundationalist evangelical form of orthodox Christianity to be more than what he says it is.

The most fundamental assault by Nietzche on Christianity in The Genealogy of Morals is not his explicit textual criticisms based through strange philology on a contrived history. Although he says that he views Christianity as a kind of Jewish revolt by an impotent priestly class against those that are weaker, his arguments do not hold up against careful scrutiny. This was adequately established several times during my class when we set out to understand his use of philology. For example, his appeal to philology to disprove the idea that guilt comes will-freedom intuitions. “Have these genealogists of morals had even the remotest suspicion that, for example, the major moral concept Schuld [guilt] has its origin in the very material concept Schulden [debts]?” (Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay, Section 4) This argument is not intended, according to the translator and editor Kaufmann, a famous Nietzche scholar who has worked to redeem Nietzche for academic study after his famous use in Hitler’s problems, to pull weight. But the truth is that it is the only referral to a potential concrete fact in the whole section, and philology is the only substantial evidence for his history offered. So, Kaufmann is probably incorrect in that assessment and we are free to move forward with our critique. But there is not far to go, the argument is easily refuted by examining English or any other language that does not have this philogical relationship to debt. Also, with the amount of information he gave us here, we cannot accept what he said because it appears equally plausible that schulden is the longer form of schuld, and the idea of debt came from an idea of responsibility stemming from moral intuitions that actually do come from our conceptions of freedom.

So, what is this genius, as he likes to consistently point out, doing? He must know this argument is invalid. This is the real puzzle in dealing with Nietzche, but it may amount to this: because power is the sum of existence, as explained in Essay 1, Section 13, with an example where he says all actions are merely actions, and do not stem from a doer, there are no ideals. Or perhaps because there are no ideals there is only material, but the point is: any ideal is not believable. Yet, remember, Nietzche is a genius. Therefore he realizes the obvious truth that “any ideal is not believable,” as I stated it above, is also an ideal! And so, he is forced also to condemn living this way. What this leaves is a totally consistent nihilist approach, expressed basically poetically throughout this work.

Here lies the challenge for Christianity, for Christianity is unavoidably an ideal. If ideals chain men, Christianity is a great means of enslaving and turning us into our own self-destroyers through an ascetic ideal.

Responding to this question is exceptionally difficult, because Nietzche leaves no common ground through which to dialogue. It demands a dishonest intellectual attitude, an accusation Nietzche himself has leveled at all idealists, in which he denies the existence of a priori propositions that he must hold. Thus, interpersonally, the only way of expressing Christianity to a Nietzchean must be by demonstrating the fruits of Christianity. There are also, I feel, still a priori conceptions buried in the consciousness of these people, placed there by God, that might be appealed to in earnest and honest friendly discussions. If consistent, they will deny these intuitive inward pulls, but perhaps it is impossible for anything less the genius of Nietzche to hold to such a powerful belief system.

Academically, which removes the intimacy of friendship from scholarly debate, strikes a more difficult solution. There is no way, operating within a Nietzchean system, to argue against Nietzche. The only plausible solution I can see is to stand humbly on the outside and express honest incredulity. An example of a very important scholar who expresses ideas (via Foucalt) held by Nietzche was Edward Said. His book Orientalism attacked the idea of learning about the Orient as an academic discipline because it was a form of mental imperialism, and the source of political imperialism. Now, the form of Said’s argument is such that it assumes that ideas enslave (familiarly Nietzchean) those that they study. This is the bomb-blast of Said’s book, and is found in the introduction of a 200-page book. The response of intellectuals to Said was mixed. Bernard Lewis, the foremost American Orientalist, attacked it viciously four years after it was published. He claimed it was absurd, viewed common sensically, and this seems proper. But it required him standing outside of the philosophical system of Said and appealing to others’ common sense. The thrust of this defense is to prevent others from holding to Said’s belief system. It’s an unfortunately rear-guard stand, and in this way has its shortcomings. At this point, however, it seems the best response.

Said does not go so far as Nietzche, and so there is another root of criticism. It is this: his analysis of Orientalists seems as morally improper, by his own criteria, as the Orientalists' studies of the Orient.

Last night four of us stayed up very late discussing this particularly puzzling question:

Can we know that something tastes good?

My opinion is yes.

We most certainly can know that some things taste good to us. As long as the sense of taste is reliable, then there's a correspondence between the flavor and me, and from this point of view it seems like knowledge.

The crux of the debate hinged on what knowledge is, and whether or not taste is proper justification.

My view of the issue is that we know things according to certain modes proper to those things. Therefore the justification of our knowledge should be according to the mode that we know it. And taste is known through our tongue's tasting (and smell, actually). Therefore we can know whether or not something tastes good.

I dunno, it all seems clear to me. Dustin, you can post your position on your blog or in my comments, so that people can understand your view.

This objection seems the most cogent: taste is not true or false. Therefore taste is not a matter of knowledge. But the proposition, "this tastes good" can be a matter of knowledge (as it's propositional) therefore I am not persuaded by this objection.

A silly discussion, I know, but the real issue was epistemology and, at least to some degree, the necessary conditions of justification. At one point I found myself defending the law of non-contradiction, which was disturbingly self-contradictory.

Another issue was whether or not certainty is a condition of knowledge. I'd say no, because inductive reasoning seems to bring things probabalistically to light in such a way that I still am able to claim to know them. In other words, it's the most likely truth, but I'm still justified in believing it through my inductive argument because there's not sufficeint contrary justification. And so it would be irresponsible not to believe it.

I think the most interesting part of the discussion was on the nature of beauty. We examined, at one point, whether or not taste could be beautiful. It fit one of the signs of a beautiful thing: it inspires desire. However, considering this definition, we had to ask, "Is beauty present to every sense?" And it seems a strange thing to say "This feels beautiful." It occured to me that I'm most comfortable saying "beauty" when I'm talking about sight and hearing. Then someone asked a great question: what about brail? So deaf people can experience beauty through words, like us, but they do it with their fingers. This showed conclusively that ideas, primarily, are beautiful.

Now, ideas are immaterial realities. This seems indisputable. Ideas are most definitely not matter. You can never touch an idea or test one with an instrument. So, if beauty deals mainly with ideas, then beauty itself must be immaterial. And so Plato is right. (For an Aristotelian, beauty is immaterial but always bound in matter. If you're a Thomist, you have a hybrid of these two views, because you see beauty as existing eternally in the mind of God as the exemplar cause of beautiful things on earth: in this way Thomas obviously doesn't seem very Aristotelian, and I'm not sure he isn't a Platonist here.)

Bum bum bum!

I've been becoming a more confirmed in a more Platonic metaphysics lately, even though I've been spending a lot of time in St. Thomas Aquinas.

*later update*

I added a bit about brail because I remembered it and it's insightful and important.

I added a couple of links: one to Jeff Y's site, who's an old good friend of Libby. And one to Gabe Moothart's site, who's Libby's brother. Gabe's is always a good read, and Jeff's looks interesting, too.

Also, I fixed the link to Luke's site! Now it doesn't direct you to Microsoft.com anymore. Why on earth was it doing that? Luke's site is cool, but he should post more.

Just to make it completely clear, however, on the coolness front here is the order of the world's coolest people.

1. Libby
2. Jon
3. Our families
4. Our friends
5. Everyone else
6. Lem (he's the least coolest)

I had a busy day yesterday. I woke up early and went bird watching at Bolsa Chica with my Ornithology class at 7am. It was drizzling and windy when we first got there, but after about 45 minutes, the sun started to come out and it was beautiful. We got 46 different species, 47 if you count the Killdeer that we didn't see, but heard. I don't count it. Some cool birds that we actually saw were: Brown Pelicans, Great Blue Heron, Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Red-tailed Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Merlin Falcon (which Rafe, the professor, says he hadn't seen in 20 years!) and a Western Meadowlark. We got back a little after noon. I had some lunch, and got my stuff together for the RICA, and then went straight over there without much down time in between.

The RICA went well, I think. It's a standardized test that everyone in a teacher education program needs to take at some point. It assesses one's ability to give reading instruction. And since I took a class last semester on teaching reading, I thought it would be good to take this test as soon as possible. It consists of 70 multiple choice questions, 2 one-page essays, 2 two-page essays, and a 4-page essay. It took me exaclty 3 hours to finish it. Afterwards I was pretty tired. And hungry. But I think I did pretty well, since the reading class is designed to prepare one for the RICA. It's kind of funny: we learn in all of our education classes that standardized tests are not the best way to assess knowledge of subject matter. We also learn that it's really bad to "teach to the test." And then we have to take all these standardized tests. And we take classes to prepare us for exactly what's going to be on them. :-)

The best part was that when I got there, before they let anyone inside, I found a couple of Biola girls from one of my education classes this semester. And then another Biola girl came and waited with us. Pretty soon there were about 8 or 10 of us. I don't know any of them too terribly well, but it was really nice to see some familiar faces before going in. None of them were in my testing room, but I actually sat behind a lady who graduated from Biola a few years ago and who was in a class of mine during my first semester (which was her senior year). Having someone to talk to before the test started made me feel at ease.

And then after I got back, I went over to Jonathan's house and we had a really relaxing evening. We made dinner, and read some of Little House on the Prairie and talked. It was a great way to end a long, busy day.

Good afternoon. Libby's taking the RICA today. She should tell you more about that, because I'm sure it's an interesting experience.

Personally, I've been doing homework for my Medieval Philosophy class and for Torrey. I'm now reading Nietzche. Last week I read Marx. Darwin came right before that. I love this program! It lets me read the most interesting books.

So far this semester, it's been a fairly straight on assault on the Christian faith, but it holds up pretty dang well against the slings and arrows.

Another interesting class that I'm taking is by the famous Dr. Aaron Kleist (well, he's famous at Biola). We're doing an introduction to Shakespeare upper division English class, and it's about the histories covering the War of the Roses. Right now we're reading Richard II (Libby and I are working through this together, as it's a way to spend time together: she's not in the class, but she's being really nice and making my homework so much more interesting). Richard II is paced well, and having a background of the history makes it a really entertaining read.

But the most interesting thing about the class, as far as making it distinctive, is that its framed in the set up of a game. Instead of a term paper or final, we're all required to cast ourselves willy-nilly into a contest of wits and knowledge devised to create greater immersion into the text. The game sets the two sections of Introduction to Shakespeare (10:30 vs. 1:30) against each other. We're the Lancasters, they're the Yorks. White Rose vs. Red! Anyway, we've all been assigned characters from the time period, and we have to learn a bunch about them. We'll all be asked a series of questions to prove that we have learned it. Anyway, the point of the game is to find out who the other characters are through a series of yes or no questions that are aired over the university bulletain board service. So, for example, right now the Lancasters asked a bunch of questions to determine who was royalty and who was an earl. By doing so we'll have know a lot. It's pretty fun, a lot of strategy.

The outcome of the game isn't really so much a matter of grade as pride. The winner will be served a Shakespearean dinner by the losing section.

Check this out! Video of Cool Jump

Intelligence Design is not only an interesting philosophical theory that has wide ranging cultural implications, but it is a contentious thorn in the side of Darwinists.

Here is an article responding in fear to the Intelligence Design movement. Here's the relevant argument in the interpretation of the movement.

Historically, evolution has been opposed by Protestant Fundamentalists.
These people desire their children not to learn Darwinism.
Court rulings have charted a course for our education system to teach Darwinism on grounds of separation of Church and State.
Therefore, they have cooked up philosophical and scientific disagreements.

Of course, in his view, these scientific disagreements have no validity. There's a cursory discussion (more of an assertion than an argument, certainly no more than an explication based on the principles of Darwinism - which, in my opinion is also the extent of Darwin's same argument in The Origin of Species) on the eye's development, opposing the powerful scientific argument advanced by Behe (who, however, focuses on cell biology) called "irreducible complexity."

I find this admission curious, however: "ID is an idea with a respectable philosophical pedigree, though no credibility in modern science."

Philosophical pedigree is critical in this area, because scientific theories rest upon philosophical beliefs in every case. The very practice of science rests upon a certain view of seeing the world. Therefore, having a philisophical pedigree opposing Darwinism seems a considerable route for disagreement.

Anyway, it's an interesting, and somewhat harsh (which is fine) article that seems designed to shut down depate on this issue. People shouldn't think critically about Darwin's theories? That seems foolish!

Here's an paper he links to explaining the CRC's philosophies. It's well argued, less rhetorical, and full of true things: Explaining the "leaked theocracy memo"

Textbooks have never been my favorite thing, but today I became extremely disenchanted with them. I read the first chapter in my Child Development textbook, in which the history of the study was recounted. The author attempts to summarize several philosophers' views in the space of a couple pages. Ok, well that's the nature of a textbook. Anyway, these philosophers are ones of whom I have actually read a decent amount (Plato, Locke and Rousseau). And this textbook either gave, for each philosopher, an extremely simplistic view of what they said, or just plain got it wrong. (I should mention that Darwin and Stanley Hall are also discussed briefly, but as I have not read either of them, I don't really know if the textbook got them right or not).

The book claims, for example, that Rousseau believed that children are born naturally good. Ok, that's fine. But it goes on to say, "The role of adults, in Rousseau's view, is to let the natural positive forces in children emerge without restraint." Woah. I've read Emile. And that is not what Rousseau says. On the contrary, he would have parents/guardians very carefully and intricately regulate the experiences that the child has, so that they will come to learn exactly what the adult desires them to learn. It's to such an extreme that I really don't know how anyone could write in a textbook that he says something so different.

Then, this afternoon, I was talking about the chapter with Jonathan. I mentioned that the book says that in the Middle Ages, there wasn't much of a distinction between children and adults; they were just seen as miniature adults. He pointed out what a wrong idea of the Medievals this is.

So, pretty much, I don't want to read this textbook anymore.

All that got me thinking about why we have textbooks anyway. They're certainly not the best way to acquire knowledge. If I want to know what Plato, Locke and Rousseau think, I should read them...not this textbook. But that would take a lot more time. So, I suppose textbooks are used because they can fit a lot of basic, summarized information into a small space. The problem is, these textbook authors have a bias, so everything comes across with a twist.

I guess all this is the cost of majoring in Liberal Studies. I'll end up knowing a little about everything and, consequently, won't have a really strong grasp of any one thing.

When I'm a teacher, I'm going to try to use textbooks as little as possible. And when they must be used, they will not be regarded as the final authority. I would have said the same thing a week ago; but today, I mean it more.

I'm a T.A. for a high school English teacher in the area. Every once in a while he'll call me up and tell me he's got a stack of papers for me to grade. I'll read them and mark them up and take them back to him. Well, right now I'm working on a stack of about 60 "research" papers on capital punishment. It's not very fun. For one thing, it's kind of a depressing subject to read so much about. For another thing, these kids can't write. Many of them have a weak grasp of the English language. It's rare for me to find a paper written in complete, clear sentences. So when I find a sentence with a noun and a verb, and commas in the right places, I pause. Then I type it into Google. And then I (more often than not) find the article from which this student has plagiarized. I make a note of the website so I can let the teacher know, and then I repeat the process. It's bad. I'm kind of sick of it, and I'm only half way through the stack. *Sigh* Well, I guess this post doesn't really have much of a point, except allowing me to vent. Thanks.

Ligers are going to kill us all!

Fortunately, there's an Anti-Liger Alliance to protect us! Here's their website.

What's a liger? A liger is a cross between a male tiger and a female lion. This is different than the tigon, which is less common and is the cross between a female tiger and a male lion. It's also much bigger. Ligers are commonly bigger than either lions or tigers, perhaps exhibiting a kind of gigantism.



Here are some liger websites.

This group has their own ligers! They perform and stuff. Their liger is huge: it's over twelve feet tall when standing on its hind legs! Holy cow!

This site has some more detailed information, as well as some pictures of Ti-Ligers.

The Sierra Safari Zoo has their own liger called "Hobbs." He is big, and he is north of Reno on Highway 395!

Iraqi Elections

This is exciting for Iraq and for the Middle East.

Here's the King of Jordan's opinion on the election. I don't know how representative his opnion is of most Muslims, but I hope that he knows a bit. CNN's Interview with King Abdullah

The BBC's perspective: Iraqi Prime Minister Calls for Iraq to Unite After the Vote

This is an important article by CNN: it shows the response of Arab news headlines throughout the Middle East.

MSNBC offers another perspective, including the promise by the Al-Quaida networks in Iraq that they are not going away.
'World is Watching'

Bush's strategy is that the optimism and hope that are currently being expressed by ordinary Iraqis will now spread into the hearts and minds of other countries in the area of Iraq: resulting in a joyful change to democracy. It's a bit far-fetched, perhaps, but the same thing did happen in Europe (unsuccessfully) following the French Revolution. I'm not sure how I feel about America standing by to prevent Terrors and oppressive reactions by terrified current rulers. It's something that bears consideration.

There's more to write and more to find on the internet about this, but now it's time for study. On the reading list for this afternoon? Darwin's Origin of the Species.

It's National Kazoo Day! Check out Barbara Stewart's inspirational message.

Along the same lines as Jonathan's last post...

I've been using My Utmost for His Highest for morning devotions lately. The last couple of readings have been from Matthew 6, the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus warns against letting the cares of this world choke out the one important thing--pursuit of the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 6:25 (KJV) states: "Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on..." This is convicting. He's talking about basic needs here. If He'd said "don't think about how you can have the most money, or the best clothes..." it would be easy for me to brush it off. "Oh, well I don't do that. Ok, on to the next verse." But, no. We're to "take no thought" of our lives. At all. Not even of these basic needs. For one thing, it doesn't do any good. "Which one of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?" (verse 27) And for another thing, isn't God much more capable of taking care of our needs? He knows them better than we do. "Consider the lilies of the field..." (verse 28) If God clothes them more beautifully than Solomon, how much more will He take care of His children? Therefore, He says, take no thought..."But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (verse 33)

I have a friend who once told me, after explaining a rough financial situation she was encountering, "I've made a deal with God: I worry about Him, and He worries about everything else." And isn't that the way it ought to be? God is really the only one qualified to worry about my needs. I don't need to make myself crazy trying to do His job. My job is to worry about Him.

"I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind." (Ecclesiastes 2)

I have been re-reading Augustine's Confessions, and am struck in a new way by its excellence. As I observe the follies of loving this life falling from Augustine as he approaches Faith in God, I am convicted of my own faulty and misguided loves.

How foolish, though, to love more or as much as God any earthly thing. Surely we cannot think that ambition, pleasure, or anything else that a gracious God has given us can be worth our pursuing it for its own sake? When considered, only a righteous and transcendent God, whose love and goodness are never changing and never ending, can be the proper life-pursuit of any man or woman.

"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"Vanity of vanities! All is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

Augustine uses the example of a begger when confessing to God his own follies in this area. He was on his way to being a member of the Imperial court, or some other such exalted earthly position. In order to fulfill this desire, in order to become a recognized and worth-while Roman individual, he had to give a speech on the Emperor. However, he did not find there the happiness which he sought. Here is the text, which is addressing God:

How unhappy I was, and how conscious you made me of my misery, on that day when I was preparing to deliver a panegyric on the emperor! In the course of it I would tell numerous lies and for my mendacity would win the good opinion of people who knew it to be untrue. The anxiety of the occasion was making my heart palpitate and perspire with the destructive fever of the worry, when I passed through a Milan street and noticed a destitute beggar. Already drunk, I think, he was joking and laughing. I groaned and spoke with the friends accompanying me about the many sufferings that result from our follies. In all our strivings such as those efforts that were then worrying me, the goads of ambition impelled me to drag the burden of my unhappiness with me, and in dragging it to make it even worse; yet we hade no goal other than to reach a carefree cheerfulness. That beggar was already there before us, and perhaps we would never achieve it. For what he had gained with a few coins, obtained by begging, that is the cheerfulness of temporal felicity, I was going about to reach by painfully twisted and roundabout ways. True joy he had not. But my quest to fulfil my ambitions was much falser. there was no question that he was happy and I racked with anxiety. He had no worries; I was frenetic, and if anyone had asked me if I would prefer to be merry or to be racked with fear, I would have answered 'to be merry'. Yet if he asked whether I would prefer to be a beggar like that man or the kind of person I then was, I would have chosen to be myself, a bundle of anxieties and fears. What an absurd choice!

(Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick. VI. vi (9-10))

Augustine made an absurd choice, true, but I do not think that happiness is an absurd desire. All men desire it more than any other thing on this earth, if one would consider themselves. And that is why we can understand Augustine here, we are all yearning for the same thing he was, in different ways, and are mostly failing to accomplish it. For, temporal felicity this happiness we want is not (for this pleasurable feeling will end), rather, it is the perfect state of the soul that is found through loving God and serving Him always. And that can only be found by prostrating oneself before our Savior, who has offered Grace freely to those who ask of Him, because of a love so deep that He left Heaven, putting off his rightful Glory as God, and dying on the cross for our sins.

"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:13-12:14)

Happy Birthday to Jonathan Rowley! He's 22 on the 22nd. That deserves a prize! Last night we went out to dinner with a bunch of friends, and then back to his house. There we played a rousing game of Scattegories. After that, there was a Super Smash Brothers tournament, but it was getting late, so I didn't stay to see the end of it. Tonight we're going to his grandparents' house to celebrate with family.

Yay for Jonathan being alive! It's certainly a reason to celebrate.

Dr. Reynolds has blogged about the backlash to Dr. Dobson's comments on Spongebob Square Pants. They offer a reasonable perspective on a difficult issue.


Here he responds to an article on msnbc calling mainstream Christians "crackpots."

And here he comments on Hugh Hewitt and the situation as well.

I'm posting these because I don't have the time or ability to write a cultural critique of this level, but I do think it's really important to see this perspective. It sounds pretty right on to me, and I find it distasteful to mock Christians, even for making social missteps with true conviction.

The Second Inaugural Address of George W. Bush

I posted this before I ever read it. Now I have, and am impressed, especially by the half before the domestic policy section, which I am not quite sure about.

It is a good speech, in that it reads smoothly and consistently. It is an emjoyable read, suitably light, but with a substantial weight. Its consistent demand of one principle: the cause of freedom, is a real strength that reflects what the presidents' real focus does seem to be.

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth."

This is, to me, the reason that Bush makes a good president. His view of secular government is defined by the duty of protecting the social lives of its people because they are the creations of God. This is the belief and idea that was put forward in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the belief and idea that makes America work where other democracies have not worked. This is what kept America's Revolution from sliding into the Terror, and it is the belief that is the most powerful safeguard and keeper of us all today. Because man matters, because God loves man, we must protect man and not let innocents be killed senselessly.

Good job, President Bush. Here's to four more years!

Jonathan and I have created a new card game. It's called Find Your Family. I'll explain the rules here so you all can have a chance to experience the coolness.

For 2-4 players

The goal: to be the first to get the Jack, Queen, King and Ace of a certain suit--your "family"

The setup: Shuffle two decks together (it's very important that you use at least two decks...we haven't experimented with this completely yet, but we think it might be best to have the same number of decks as there are people playing). Now pick out four cards, one of each suit, and mix them around face down. Each person takes one, without showing it to any other players, to find out what his "family" suit will be. All four cards are shuffled back into the deck. Deal each player four cards. The top card of the deck is turned over to begin the discard pile.

Playing: Player left of the dealer goes first. With each turn, the player must take one card (either from the pile, or from the top of the discard pile) and discard one. Play continues until one player has all four face cards of his "family" suit. At that point, I think it would be cute if he has to say "Family Reunion!" to let the other players know he's found them all, but Jonathan thinks it's sufficient to say, "Yay!" or "I won!" You must decide this for yourself.

Variation: You can also play Find Your Extended Family, where you have to find all the cards of a certain suit except the face cards. It plays the same, but you use nine cards in your hand.

The history of the game: Find Your Family evolved from a game we made up early last semester called Find Your Mom, where you only had to find the Queen of a given suit. That game is much shorter. Plus, we played it with only one deck, so we pretty easily figured out whose Mom was whose. And then it ended with both of us holding onto the other's Mom, refusing to discard. It became clear that we would need to make some changes. Hence, the above game rules.

There you have it. Now, go. Find your family.

Hey! We came back from Mammoth!

We actually came back early from our trip, which turned out to be quite an adventure.

The first sign that our trip was an adventure came when we arrived at the cabin. We toiled the two miles in two hours or so, slowed by heavy packs and sleds to a snail's pace at times. We turned on the power switch and went over to the upper window on the lee side of the cabin that we use to enter during the window. Unfortunately, the key that we had didn't turn the lock. We jiggled and warmed it, and still, nothing happened. The only option was to take the shutter off its hinges. This was an involved and difficult process in the cold and high snow. Finally, we got it off and Dad climbed into the cold and dark cabin.

"The lights aren't working. Someone check the breaker to make sure it's turned on."

Ok... Bill had flipped it on, which takes digging a couple of feet down into the snow. I went over to double check. But, as I looked, someone noticed that some of the power lines from the cabin were laying in the snow nearby.

That's when we realized that, after working so hard just to get into the cabin, it was now going to be a little less welcoming. We all bundled into the cave-like darkness, and went downstairs to where Dad was starting a fire. We looked around for candles. The thing about the cabin is that, during the winter, it's completely under snow. So there're no windows. The only lights were the candles, the fire, an electric lantern that I found in an upstairs attic cupboard, and the headlamps and flashlights that we brought with us.

Anyway, the snow was still really nice, and skiing was a joy. We also made a couple sled runs onto the lake, which is a great place to do it, since the run-out from the run can go forever onto the flat expanse.

Unfortunately, I had to come down early because I was having some sort of severe heartburn-like symptoms that wouldn't go away. I had them for about 16 hours, without any sign of abating, despite taking a lot of heartburn medication. But once we skiied out Saturday evening in the gathering twilight, I got better. By the time we were on highway 395 outside of Mammoth, the symptoms were all gone.

Bill and Becca wonderfully drove me home, and I finally arrived back Sunday morning at 1:30 or so. Libby drove the last leg and got home a little after me. She was a real trooper and learned a lot about how to ski, since this was her first time. She did great!

The puzzle got finished last night. It's very nice to see it finally done.

Jonathan and I are going with his parents and Bill and Becca to spend a few days at the Rowley cabin up in Mammoth. We leave early tomorrow morning, and we'll get back on Monday. It's going to be great! This will be my second trip to the cabin, and I'm pretty excited about it. There will be tons of snow, and we'll do some skiing. That's a funny word: skiing. There aren't many words with two i's in the middle like that. Anyway, I've never skied before, but they're all very experienced, so I'll have some good teachers. We'll see how it goes!

I need to start getting my stuff together. Have a good weekend!

My very cool brother and sister-in-law got me a 1,000 piece puzzle for Christmas. The last few days of my life have consisted largely of putting this thing together. It's got a pretty lighthouse, and cliffs, and some trees, and then lots of water and sky. The water and sky of course have been saved for last, as they have much less variation. This afternoon, however, much progress has been made. One of my roommates, Katie, has a couple of friends over to spend the night. The four of us have spent the last two and a half hours sitting at the card table, piecing it together. They're still out there working on it, in fact, but I needed a break. We had some good conversation and learned some really practical lessons as we worked on it. Some of the highlights:
--"C'mon little piece, aren't you ready to stop being an individual and become part of the Whole?"
--"In puzzles, as well as life, the weird shaped ones often become the most helpful in finding that perfect fit; we can be thankful for the freaks."
--"Maybe you need to stop looking for the perfect piece, and spend more time making sure you become the perfect piece."

There's just some sky left!

Hey, look, everyone! I'm posting! And man, have I got some exciting things to say. To start with, there's this music video of a popular Romanian song. You simply must watch it. The band is O-Zone; the song is Dragostea Din Tei; the result is hilarity.

After that, you should watch the lego version. They cleverly call it LegO-Zone.

You can read a translation of the lyrics here.

And whattheheck, since I'm posting all these links, I'll throw in one that shows a guy dancing to the song at his computer.

Also, as I was searching around for these treasures, I found out an interesting piece of information. This song is not original to O-Zone. Oh, no. The band that wrote it is called Haiducii, or The Outlaws. Ah, I get it now.

Today I worked 11 hours. Last week I worked 9 or 10 hours a day, but I'm shooting for 12 hours a day for the rest of this week. Anyhow, that means that I don't have time to post very much.

In further news, Libby Moothart and I have reached a new point in our relationship. Today I've added her to my blog. She can now post the neat things she's been thinking and finding and doing during her (much) less busy days this interterm. So this momentous occasion will work to augment the paucity of my blog's posts.