Saturday, February 24, 2007 

bye bye blogger

go to beitiathustra.wordpress.com

i hate blogger

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 

Season's Readings

No idle word should be uttered. I understand a word to be idle when it serves no good purpose, either for myself or for another, and was not intended to do so. Hence, words are never idle when spoken for any useful purpose, or when meant to serve the good of one's soul or that of another, of the body or of temporal possessions. Nor are they idle because one speaks of matters that do not pertain to his state, for example, if a religious speaks of wars or of commerce. In all we have mentioned, there will be merit if what is said is directed to some good purpose; there will be sin if it is directed to an evil purpose, or if engaged in for no good end.

from "The Spiritual Exercises" of Saint Ignatius Loyola

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 

True Now as it was in 1930

From the lunch-hour read:
If from the view-point of what concerns public life, the psychological structure of this new type of mass-man be studied, what we find is as follows: (1) An inborn, root-impression that life is easy, plentiful, without any grave limitations; consequently, each average man finds within himself a sensation of power and triumph which, (2) invites him to stand up for himself as he is, to look upon his moral and intellectual endowment as excellent, complete. This contentment with himself leads him to shut himself off from any external court of appeal; not to listen, not to submit his opinions to judgment, not to consider others' existence. His intimate feeling of power urges him always to exercise predominance. He will act then as if he and his like were the only beings existing in the world; and, consequently, (3) will intervene in all matters, imposing his own vulgar views without respect or regard for others, without limit or reserve, that is to say, in accordance with a system of "direct action".

Thursday, February 01, 2007 

Shocking revelations...

I took another of those stupid online quizzes:

You are a 100% traditional Catholic!

Congratulations! You are more knowlegeable than most modern theologians! You have achieved mastery over the most important doctrines of the Catholic Faith! You should share your incredible understanding with others!

Do You Know Your Baltimore Catechism?
Make Your Own Quiz



There's a surprise . . .

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 

More math

I can't claim credit for this little redux, it actually owes its existence to one Bertrand Russell, but it does provide a little food for thought:
If 2+2=5, and twice two is four. Subtract 3 from both sides then 1=2. But you and the Pope are two therefore you and the Pope are one. [and therefore you're the Pope!]
Its in that basic form. Two things strike me from this silly little display. First, historically, with the advent of non-Euclidean geometries and various 'logical systems', the whole project of mathematics became one of consistency - not truth as from some outside source. This is why prior to these forays into mathematical extravagance Theology, Mathematics and Philosophy were tied so closely together. Mathematics did not have to appeal to some experience, or observation for its truth, it was in some sense like seeing into the mind of God. Mathematics fell on hard times after that, however. (one is reminded of Gauss' assertion that we should climb three very tall mountains with beams of light to determine what the "actual" measure of the interior angles of a triangle is to determine whether Geometry should be plane (Euclidean), hyperbolic or elliptical) I guess the point is that if you base your mathematics solely on the principle of self-consistent axioms solely, then what was once a rich edifying subject is now just a chess match. Ugh. From a non-mathematical standpoint one finds this very distasteful.
The second thing that strikes me is a caveat pure and simple: Beware taking the solution to an equation for real life. Let God be a mathematician - I find that warming. But if God is a mathematician, I certainly don't think he makes axiomatic consistency His primary rule of thumb. We can certainly create an axiomatic system where 2+2=5, but equating me with another is a much further step. I would caution scientists from doing the same thing.

Sunday, January 28, 2007 

Playing with pets

Half the fun of having children is playing with them and their pets.
Without further ado, John and Flannery:

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 

New kid

Here's the photos you all wanted to see (by popular request):