« August 14, 2005 - August 20, 2005 | Main | August 28, 2005 - September 3, 2005 »
August 21, 2005
Calvinist Romance
TSO challenging the Curt Jester on his own turf. Frightening, enlightening, and extremely amusing.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 8:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Found at a Blog New to Me
Can't say I was thrilled to death with the results--however here they are unvarnished. Interesting the two that should tie. I guess all that jungina stuff about a shadow self may not be so far off the mark!
 | You scored as Severus Snape. Well you're a tricky one aren't you? Nobody quite has you figured out and you'd probably prefer it stayed that way. That said you are a formidable force by anyone's reckoning, but there is certainly more to you than a frosty exterior and a bitter temper.
Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...? created with QuizFarm.com |
Found at Catholic Pillow Fight (new to me) via Catholic Light.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 22, 2005
Msgr. Clarke
I am blissfully ignorant of whatever it is that is circulating about Msgr. Clarke and intend to stay that way. I've seen hints here and there and have decided that I really don't need to know more. I suppose it is something like burying my head in the sand--but so be it!
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:22 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Metrosexual--You Just Can't Keep the Bullies Down
I despise labels.
I think I've made that clear before in entry after entry, but in case I haven't. . .
I despise labels.
Other than scientific names and nomenclatural assists, human beings most often use labels as offensive weapons. A label is simply a tag that then typifies everything about a person. A label in many ways serves the same function as a car surrounding a person. Once a person is in a car, it is no longer people we are dealing with but cars. We can weave in and out, cut others off and do the most amazing things that most of us would not consider doing outside of a car. But within a car we are insulated from humanity--our own and that of others. So too with labels--we insulate ourselves from the humanity they are presumed to define.
Those who take labels upon themselves do so for a myriad of reasons, but it does not lessen the onus of the label. When I am dealing with a communist, I am no longer dealing with a person but with a mass of ideology. That we so easily fall into the habit of labeling is a sign of intellectual laziness and of a certain desire to define ourselves outside of the label.
The most recent example of this is a label imposed by persons who are afraid of what deviates, even by a small amount, from supposed norms. I don't even know for certain what a "metrosexual" is. Seems to me that this is some variety of heterosexual who can now be despised for his or her supposed differences from all those around him or her. By my reading a metrosexual has a heterosexual's orientation with a "homosexual's" interests. Now, what precisely describes a homosexual's interests and why do they fall outside the realm of what a heterosexual man should be interested in? Can a heterosexual man read and enjoy Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, and the collected works of Angela Thirkell? Can he delight in the works of Gilbert and Sullivan and Cole Porter? Can he have any interest outside of his car, his toolbox, and the Sunday game? From my reading, it certainly doesn't seem like it. A metrosexual (whatever in the world that might be) is a man who is hardly a man at all (as defined by those, who I suppose think they know what a man is).
Metrosexual is another label, even more useless and damaging than others that have arisen. It is a label designed to narrowly circumscribe the interests that a fully heterosexual male might consider. What idiocy! As though because a label has arisen I intend to sit around all day watching Spike TV and CNN, drinking beer, and waiting for the next season (for whatever sport) to start.
I'll admit it. I despise competitive sports. Greater damage has been done to our society and to me personally in the name of competitve sports than nearly any other facet of our entertainment industry. Early on I swear I tried, but I could not fathom the interest in one group of men or another chasing around one form of spheroid or another to some end that didn't seem exactly earth-shattering. Nope--just don't see the attraction--haven't for a long time, probably never will. I don't despise and hate it as I once did--when those who were interested in these things used them as a bludgeon for those of us who were not conversant (thus my header).
I see the label metrosexual as a way of distinguishing where there should be no distinction. I do not self-identify as a metrosexual (fortunately, for one thing I don't dress nearly well enough, and my taste in Hawaiian shirts is enought o refute the label for life). Even if my fashion sense did not exclude me automatically, I would still refuse to accept a label such as this which is designed to set apart.
When will we learn that separate is never equal. A metrosexual, separated out from the heterosexual mass, will either be greater or lesser, as indeed a homosexual, distinguished from the general humanity of male sex will be regarded either as greater or lesser depending upon his surroundings. Why is this a necessary part of our interaction with one another? Why do we insist upon hurtful distinctions? How does it help us navigate society and serve the Lord? I don't recall the great saints spending their time telling each other, "Well so and so is a well-known metro." They even accepted and embraced the humanity of those who disfigurements and diseases had far removed them from the ordinary run of humanity.
Labels do not help us to grow in love. The finer the distinction, the greater the possibilities for thinking of reasons why we need not love the person as an image of God.
As with all labeling--I repudiate and reject it. The labeling disfigures us, dismantles us, makes us less than human. It serves no useful purpose except to breed prejudice and disregard. Think about it--what do you think of when someone says, "NASCAR fan" or "Country Music Fan" or "Marilyn Manson Fan" or "Barbara Streisand Fan." The words themselves conjure a reaction, usually gut-level. They breed a prejudice that alienates us from the humanity of the individual. All on the basis of what we like in the world of entertainment--hardly a significant criterion for judgment. And yet we are so anxious to feel good about ourselves that we seize on any label, any pretext for forming a difference that will somehow enhance our own status--most often at the cost of another's.
Reject labeling. In your Christian walk refuse to identify any person as anything other than a person--someone made in the image and likeness of God, someone loved beyond all bounds, without reservation, without qualification. Prepare yourself for heaven where all will be as they are without label or insignificant distinction. Make the kingdom of Heaven on Earth, by refusing to classify and pigeonhole God's most marvelous and wonderful creation.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:25 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
August 23, 2005
Survey Results that Tell You Nothing You Didn't Already Know
Survey:
Age: Not a subject for polite company
[Gender] Sex: Male**
Location: Orlando, FL
Religion: Roman Catholic
Occupation: Education
Began blogging: (dd/mm/yy): 07/02
Political Compass results:
Left/Right: -3.63
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
IPIP-NEO results:
EXTRAVERSION: 2
AGREEABLENESS: 96
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: 95
NEUROTICISM: 52
OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE: 84
Track List:
1. Philosophy, et cetera - pixnaps.blogspot.com - pixnaps97a2
2. Parableman - parablemania.ektopos.com - p8r8bl9m8n18
3. Rebecca Writes - everydaymusings.blogspot.com
4. Ales Rarus - alesrarus.funkydung.com - ales2112avis
5. Here I Stand - exiledcatholic.blogspot.com - exiled323catholic
6. Catholicism, Holiness, and Spirituality
**(I have gender only in the sense that man is masculilne--I refuse to be a grammatical element and to succumb to the casual use of a grammatical term to describe my human identity. Please pardon the vulgar pun, but Humans have sex (as do most animals), objects have gender. One of my favorite bugbear/lectures).
Now, you can find more about the personality assay at the above sites or or Fr. Jim's site. The short personality assay gave more extreme results in all categories, the longer mellowed out many things--but as you can see extraversion is still at extremely low amounts. According to the assay, this is somewhat counterbalanced by agreeableness which is very high levels. Oh, who really cares anyway.
And the political thing--that I should be in the same bin with Gandhi, this surprises whom? Not exactly a newsflash. On the other hand, you can see it is a slow day for blogging for me (energies are turned elsewhere in the writing world). So, I present this for your delectation and delight and encourage you to visit many of these other people and learn more from them.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 24, 2005
Why I Am NOT a Calvinist
Alicia has a nice post on Calvnism that serves to solidify my primary objections to the whole doctrine.
A "five-point" Calvinist adheres to all of the following:
1. T ~ Total Depravity of Man (effect of the fall)
2. U ~ Unconditional election (God's choice to save some but not all from the effects of the fall)
3. L ~ Limited Atonement (Christ died for only the elect that God chooses to save)
4. I ~Irrestisitble Grace (Grace given to the elect to receive salvation which is effectual and irresistible)
5. P ~ Perseverance of the Saints (the ability of the saints to persevere in saving grace)
When I was studying Calvinism I could never resolve total depravity with the innate goodness of all that God created. That goodness could not be "undone" by mere human action and so the idea of total depravity seemed unwarranted. Now, that is a facile and surficial understanding, I'm certain. Nevertheless, it was one objection. But the largest objection came between U and I. God unconditionally elects only some to be saved and then saves them with irresistable Grace. This is the sticking point for me. If I believed in the God represented by this doctrine I would have to believe in a God who creates without bounds, supposedly loves unconditionally, but who, for whatever reason chooses to damn some portion of the human race before they are born and not to redeem them. My word for this is not God, but rather Monster. How could an all-loving, all giving God arbitrarily determine some number of His Children would be thrown into the fire forever. Sounds like the Uber-Moloch to me.
Now Calvinists do temper these two lines of doctrine and nuance them with subtleties far too subtle for me. But when I boil it all down, the question comes to attempting to reconcile an all-loving Father who deliberately casts away some portion of his children. Well, then, I would say in my naivete, He isn't very all-loving now is He?
Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
Rejection and Detachment
Once again Disputations provides some excellent food for thought. Would that my thoughts were so good as the food that engenders them. Nevertheless, please accept these meagre ruminations for what they are--a kind of riff spun off a more substantial discussion.
The excerpt that caused this spin-off:
(from Disputations)
But there's nothing in this model of the intellect that requires the concepts to be concepts relating to beauty. They can be concepts related to race, or to risk, or to toxicity. An absolute mistrust of perceivable beauty -- of that which is beautiful -- amounts to an absolute mistrust of perceivable creation, which ought to be unthinkable for a Christian. There is no barb in beauty, unless the Author of Beauty placed it there.
It may be, though, that a mistrust of the human intellect, a recognition of the frequency with which it makes mistakes regarding beauty, is expressed as what might be called a prudential mistrust of beauty. If we can't make the intellect work better, we can at least avoid giving it things it works poorly on.
What occurred to me, and what I started to spell out in the comments there is that there is another form of distrust of beauty that occurs in religious circles. That form might be called the seduction of beauty.
The chain of reason goes something like this. To become more like God, we are called to detachment. Detachment is difficult enough in itself, and far more difficult when the good we are attached to is beautiful, therefore as a step in detachment, we must reject what is beautiful even though it might be good because we are held bound by it.
The response to this is multiple. First, detachment is the means to an end, not an end in itself. It is the path travelled, and frankly may be only one of many such paths to travel, whose destination is intimacy with God. To treat detachment as an end is to the miss the point, and to align all things in life to achieve an end which is only a means redefines the means as an end equal to the true end. That's a complicated way of saying that if you do this you are missing the point of detachment.
What I didn't say in my comment, and what is by far the more subtle error in this type of reasoning is that when one does this one has become attached to the idea of rejection. That is, we substitute attachment to a real thing (one that grace can more readily conquer) for attachment to an idea or an ideal (a far more hazardous and difficult a barrier).
If, as a Christian, you think you are being called to reject the beauty and goodness of God's creation my best advice to you would be to seek out a wise spiritual advisor to help you discern what is really going on. God did not put all of the beauty He has on the Earth to be ignored. Detachment from that beauty does not mean rejection of it or lack of recognition of it. There may be some beauty that we are called to prudentially restrain our interest in. (For most males I know, the beauty of the female form is something like this.) Nevertheless, what a miserable and small place the world would be if we did not recognize and relish this beauty as is licit and correct.
So my only real response is that it is a distorted understanding of detachment to suggest that it would require rejection of beauty. (And let me make explicitly clear, this was in no way implied by what Tom wrote--but I respond to what he writes as the person I am and express the interests that I have.) Now, it is possible that particular vulnerability to a type of beauty (aforementioned feminine pulchritude) may prudentially require not so much a rejection but a careful screening of such beauty (If thine right eye offend thee, pluck it out.) But it would be nonsense, and dangerous nonsense, to claim that what is good and truly beautiful is not so. It would be equally dangerous to reject all of God's beauty because some part of it particularly appeals, or because a distortion in our own view and character makes of the object of beauty an object of temptation.
In short, detachment does not require rejection of beauty. In fact, to be able to even consider attachment, immersion in the beauty of the world seems a salutary thing. You would come to realize that you cannot own it, hold on to it, keep it, or even remember it as lovely as it is outside of the moment. It teaches you to appreciate the good things of God and to let them go freely, always knowing that God's goodness ever exceeds His goodness as we come to know and love Him.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 2:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Words to Live by
Being an aural portrait, a memory, and a word photograph of EPCOT expeditions. With commentary.
Overheard this evening while standing outside of the Land, photographing some sort of wild berries. A man speaking to wife and at least two children of age of reason. "I spent an effing fortune to get us here. Now shut up and enjoy it." Now, with the golden inspiration summed up in these stirring words of leadership, solidarity, and caring how could anyone fail to have fun?
Then there is my dear father, God rest his soul, whose grim determination and iron will propelled his wife, seven year-old daughter, and teen-aged daughter, along with Linda, Samuel, and myself through a whirlwind tour of all the Nations at EPCOT. Fondly memorialized in family tradition as the EPCOT Death March, it culminated in my father flying into a frothing rage when my younger step-sister wanted to buya pencil as a souvenir. The stuff golden memories are made of.
Contrast these two with the picture of a young father, perhaps twenty-eight, twenty-nine, sitting on the pinkish brown curb outside of the great Globe--Spaceship Earth. Obviously tired and hotter than he'd ever been in Wisconsin, or Iowa, or wherever he came from to visit. He sat there holding his daughter--peaps seven-or-eight sprawled across his knees asleep. And he and his wife were chatting, smiling, and laughing. I wish I'd had the courage to ask for a photograph. A photograph that would serve to remind me that a proper ordering of Earthly goods leads to the same wonderful end--ourselves sprawled across the knees of our loving, indulgent, heavenly Father.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:55 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
How NOT to Read Scripture
A discussion in the comments box at Disputations reminds me of one of my favorite subjects as detailed in the title above. And I will take as my example the subject of Just War.
The Church teaches that Just War is a revelation of God. Thus, as Catholics, we may accept Just War Theory as Holy Truth. Now, I'm not terribly keen on the theory myself, and I have some serious questions about it; however, it serves as the perfect example because it seems the middle ground between the Old Testament and dogmatic pacifism; and therefore a test case.
Now, if we were to read the Bible as some seem to do, a verse at a time out of context, we would stumble upon something like this in the Old Testament:
" Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " (Samuel 15:3)
I'm sure you all have stumbled upon this and other quotations like this and have puzzled for a moment wondering what God ordered this. If the Lord truly revealed "just war" or if pacifism has any hope of being true, what does one do with revelations such as these? Just war tells us that we must limit the damage done to combatants alone--I doubt infants, children, cattle, sheep, camels, or donkey qualify under these rules. Is the Church then teaching something that flies in the face of scripture?
No. Not when scripture is regarded in its fullness and not verse by verse. I think there is hardly a doctrine of any sect of Christianity that a verse by verse reading of the Bible would not confound. But when all of the Bible is understood in the context of the fullness of revelation, only then can our doctrinal pronouncements begin to make sense.
So, how NOT to read the Bible? Verse by verse, one snippet at a time, seeking our will and our agenda whereever we go. Whenever we encounter a scripture, one must always bring it into the light of the revelation of Jesus Christ and ask how it stands up in that light--is this the fullness of the understanding of God.
I won't say that the words in Samuel are wrong or that divine inspiration fails in encountering them. I will say rather human understanding fails in dealing with them. They are not in accord with the revelation of Jesus, nor even with the fullness of the revelation of the Old Testament. I don't know what they mean separately--but I do know for certain that they reaffirm the strong bond God has forged with the chosen people--they make clear that the chosen ones are God's favored. They do not give us license to commit these atrocities ourselves. More, are they like the words of God to Abraham without the retraction of the later angel? The question must be asked because Israel failed to wipe out the Amalekites. There was no love lost between the two nations, so something else must have intervened--perhaps something lost to history which, by its nature was not nearly so important as the revelation of God's love for his people.
I don't know for certain. But what I do know is that reading any book of the Bible, any verse, any passage, any word outside the fullness of the complete revelation is a recipe for private interpretation and religious disaster. If one is to accept the truth of revelation, one must also understand that here below we will see and understand only a small fragment of that truth. So, when reading the Bible, do not cling too closely to that which makes you comfortable, but carry everything out into the light of Christ.
I know that I am chief among those who tend to focus on a verse or a piece and lose the sense of the whole. I need to remember even more than anyone else what I've written here. Scripture only makes sense in the context of the whole, so we must seek the whole to begin to understand.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:07 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 27, 2005
The Horticultural Wonder of the Week
I know you all have been waiting with bated breath wondering what I would share from this week's excursions. But before I unveil it. . .
Providence acts in so many kindly ways to perform so many seemingly minor services, all of which go toward reinforcing our love of God. God acts through natural means and the natural world to remind us always that He is present. Today, for me, was a case in point.
I had thought about going to EPCOT again. I really like EPCOT--the gardens, the spaces, the architecture, the music, etc. But I was really tired of EPCOT. I didn't really want to venture the Magic Kingdom on a Saturday before the rest of the world was in school, so that left MGM Studios or Animal Kingdom. Frankly, I am not all that wowed by Animal Kingdom. The designers built it to give you a sense of adventure, of being lost in the tangle of thicket, with the net result that if there are more than 15 people in the park, it seems crowded. The pathways are difficult to negotiate, and there's an awful lot of jostling, bustling and general knocking about that a crowd-sky person doesn't care for. MGM, on the other hand, has fewer gardens, more indoorsy stuff that generally leaves me with the "been there, done that" feeling of the over-familiar.
I opted for Animal Kingdom. Again sheer providence, because there is no coincidence, only purpose. When I got to the gate I saw an announcement that took my breath away. They had back in the hinterlands of the park a Titan Arum. Yes, children, that's what you'll be looking at. What, you may ask, is a Titan Arum. Why it's only the largest blossom structure in the world. It's a plant that grown naturally in Sumatra. A few years back a specimen was taken to Kew Gardens and encouraged to grow. Since then fewer than 100 specimens in the United States have grown to blossom and stink up the house. Because you see, the blossom smells a great deal like rotting meat--the better to attract pollinator flies.
Well, the largest "flower" of this plant was about twelve feet high. I use the word "flower" advisedly because it really is a flower-cover. The flowers are much smaller structures at the base of the plant covered by what looks like a large blossom that closes up at night to help prevent self-pollination. So it isn't really the largest single flower in the world--that honor is held by Rafflesia, but you've got to admit, a twelve foot blossom is a spectacular specimen.
Now, the specimen you are about to see is on its way to blossoming, but a ways off--perhaps as much as two weeks to a month. This specimen was grown from a 134 pound tuber and is two weeks old at the time of these pictures.
I honestly can't tell you when the last time I was so excited was. I'll be on the phone every day to the horticulturalist finding out when the blossom will open and I'll be out there the day it opens and every day after that I can be. This is one of those experiences that the mystics call "consolations." I don't look for them, but I am exceedingly thankful when they come around. This really is a blessing for me and I am so grateful to be able to share some small part of it. I know it isn't all that exciting for you all, but please accept my word that this is only overshadowed by the great good news that Spouse and Child return tomorrow. Hurray! The axial tilt problem that started back in June will come to an end and with it the blossoming to a Titan Arum!
Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Write What You Know
Fledgling writers are often given the very good advice to "write what you know." The problem is that what one knows and knows well could very well be harmful to others. I discovered that as I set out upon a recent writing journey from which I share the following excerpt because I do not think it will go any further. The piece I share is not harmful, but some of the rest might well be. People who know me well might read it and think that they are being written about, and nothing could be farther from the truth, and yet people will see what they will see. So as discretion is the bitter part of valor (to quote Philip Jose Farmer), I think I do better to share only this relatively harmless excerpt.
It was into this fray that one day in late June I unsuspectingly wandered. I had been working on my Ph.D. in paleobiology--my particular subject of study was the functional morphology of seive-like plates that constitute one of the most identifiable of the disagreggated parts of an extinct relative of modern-day starfish. But, alas, my funding ran out and I had only one possibility--and a rather dismal one at that. The State Geological Survey needed coal resource mappers. It paid a buck more than minimum wage and involved weeks away from wife and soon-to-be child. But, whatever it took to keep body and soul together. More daunting than the summer prospects was the seeming perspective on the rest of my life. I was looking out over the increasingly dismal vistas of academia, knowing with a fearful certainty that I was destined for a soul-crushing eternity of teaching undergraduates who came to us as the deplorable product of what we laughingly call an educational system. All ths while balancing a rich array of grant-writing, research, and political backbiting and infighting that made the U.S. Senate look live a haven of serenity and equability. It little mattered that my advisor seemed to wear it very well and manage without much expensive therapy or extensive and inventive recreations of himself through padded CV and bogus nominations and awards.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Writing News/Request for Prayers
Some years ago, I was in a writing group with three other very talented writers. Together we hit upon the idea of writing a short novel for a new market of "dime books" in supermarket chains. The novels were to be less than 50,000 words in length and could be in any number of genres.
The four of us sat down and picked a favorite plot--The Count of Monte Cristo--to redo as Science Fiction. (Yes, yes, I know it had been done before--but we do well to recall Ecclesiates dictum, "There is nothing new under the sun.") We outlined the plot and then assigned each person a group of chapter to do, passing the manuscript around one to the next. Well, as it transpires, what we had to say could not be said within the constraints of 50,000. (Well, we should have gotten a clue from the length of the source, shouldn't we?) At any rate we continued to work on it.
After I moved away from Ohio, the group more or less dissolved. The novel lay dormant for a few months and then I took it out and substantially rewrote it after trying to interest the others in completing it. Only one other was interested. I rewrote the novel substantially. She did some touch-up stuff. And then years passed.
A few months ago, she wrote to ask for the odd straggler file she wouldn't seem to find and recently wrote to say that she has submission letter and other information ready to go. She's chosen a couple of publishers to start and if one doesn't take it, she'll send it to the next immediately.
I'm excited. I thought the work was worthwhile some years ago. I still think it is. I've always lacked the necessary stick-to-it-tiveness to force it through the long process of publication. But I can see doing this in tandem--contributing to it as it were.
So I ask your prayers that our novel is well and gently received, even if not accepted for publication. I pray that we all learn something from it and from this experience I have something to share with you all.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 6:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Audition
I watched this because it was sited as one of the 100 best horror films of all time and it was actually fairly close to the top. Brought to you by the same genius that gave us The Happiness of the Katakuris, Audition is another species of salmon altogether. (My review of the former, once at Popcorn Critics is, alas, no longer.)
And frankly, I have to say that after seeing this film I had the same reaction I've had to every post Akira Kurosawa (and some pre-) Japanese film I've ever seen. Huh? What's going on? What does it mean? Why is it repeated three, four, five, six times? How did it end? What did it mean? What was the point?
Japanese films must rely upon a whole context of cultural clues to which I have no access because every time I watch one I am completely mystified. This is no exception. Girl auditions for a film role. Producer pursues girl. Girl is psychotic abused psycho-killer torturer or somesuch. Hack, slash, oops it was all a dream. Or maybe the dream was a dream and all that wasn't a dream was what was real. Paralyzed bodies, talking heads, blood and the end, plinking away on a piano.
I don't know. I suppose I liked some of the tension and suspense. But this isn't for the kiddies. And it isn't for the faint of heart. And it isn't for someone who expects a coherent story line. And it isn't for . . .
Only for crazed Japanese film afficianados. Everyone else can give it a big miss and not have missed a thing.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:41 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack