DENNIS HALL

Dateline 2-27-12 0700

As I write these words, Dennis is probably getting onto the table at Rockford Memorial Hospital to receive at least a 3-vessel coronary bypass. I don't mind saying that this is an entry that is also a prayer to The Creator and Originator of the designed Dennis; and a petition to The Son Jesus Christ, who healed all who came his way on earth, but Who has also watched since then as Jerusalem and the rest of us have gone not His way, but our own. Sir, cease, sayeth He.

We cannot be sent in as a sub for God--but we are instructed to pray without ceasing for our enemies, not to mention our friends.  As Dennis does read these entries, I hope he will know that he is a friend and although we spar occasionally in these pages, it is my pleasure to pray for him today, I do not have to force myself.  If there be any who ever read these pages and considers me their enemy, please know that I do not reciprocate; and it is quite easy to pray for those whose intentions I don't very well know--and they may not know them either. 

This I do know, and continue to present: that just one person transcends  in importance all the civilizations and philosophies ever built and written. For those who realize this, the rest falls into place rather more easily than most of our vain ambitions that we force on our inwardly resentful selves, and on others outside of us.

And that goes for U2 Mr. Dennis!!!

The Race is to the Tom Swifties

I wonder…has the dear reader ever considered the word, “race” as related in its two major meanings, that is, as a competition, and as a people group?  Certainly the connection is clear in a Darwinian context—the races are racing for race superiority and conquest.  Oliver Wendell Holmes defined justice as 51% of the nation that can lick all the others. (He is more the father of American law than Lincoln could ever be)

Even in the ethnic context, it is hard to make a case for people around the world being different in any essences; but only in superficial matters, mostly dealing with outward appearances.  That’s why we are so fascinated by ethnic uniforms—which also is a matter of competition—if you don’t believe me, watch any of Oscar’s  "really big shews!"

The concept of “One Blood” is far more consequential. Jesus never mentioned race; but He was abundantly informative about beliefs—even though He also pointed out that they are hardly permanent but change sometimes hourly as he pointed out the fickle nature of crowds and individuals and how prone they are to change with circumstances. It is likely that He referred to the Jews as a special group—but not in terms of blood, virtue, or even blessing but in regards to prophecy and law.

“This little laptop of mine” is not shining but erasing text…more later…

NONE OF THESE DISS--EASIES

In the book, “None of These Diseases”, the author outlines the difference between Hebrew laws of medical treatment and the concurrent state of the Egyptian Medical Arts. (making the difference between law and art striking also)

It also points out the difference between revelation and magic. One famous sociologist pointed out that the difference between magic and Hippocrates is that the physician/magician was, like Baalam, a hired gun—who was better able to kill than to cure, and could minister or murder depending on the highest bidder.

Now that we have essentially turned our back not only on God but on even the best of the Greeks, we see that medicine is changing back to a kind of pseudo-scientific witchcraft that refuses to acknowledge any type of absolutes, either in investigation or practice. It even becomes a kind of media circus event, ongoing and chaos-inspired. Wild theories become instant science and dominated by blatant pandering, again, to the highest bidder. But as might be expected of a culture defined by commercialism, corporate slavery, and materialism, a kind of “social proof” dominates the scene and whatever people can be led to believe is in their best (always short-term; don’t think of anything else!) interests.

I have perhaps pointed out in the past that medicine and science itself is defined and driven by culture; hence is never as objective as it pretends to be. Numerous studies, when one dares to do them, demonstrate this; and it is tacitly but seldom explicitly believed.  Medicine itself, having oversold itself and been caught in numerous fabrications and false promises, is experiencing a decline in its reputation—yet people are often in slavery to the very facts that give them “dys-ease”. Rather like the many self-medicating smokers who use the most addictive drug on earth, while acknowledging that chances are it will shorten their lives and make what remains increasingly miserable in exchange for treating their anxiety issues with the worst possible means.

Revelation by science is only slightly more advantageous than medicine by magic. Both require the placebo effect, i.e. belief in both doctor and drug (and system) The Egyptians, often praised in secular histories, treated illnesses with fly dung and other equally “potent” materials. It seems still that many of our medications are being legally and otherwise withdrawn as doing more harm than good; in parallel with our descent into commerciality and social Darwinism.

This topic will come up again; so I will let it “ferment”. Today I want to ask that we pray for the only person who regularly reads this blog and its predecessor—friend and philosopher Dennis Hall. I will say no more except that he is having a procedure in Rockford today and that will determine the way of his health care in the future. I hope that the above will not discourage him; but genuinely truthful medical care restricts itself to time-tested means and I have full confidence in the physician who is treating him. Nonetheless: the point of the above is that the Author of Revelation is to be trusted above all physicians in the flesh: and I can firmly and fully affirm the Words of the Great Physcian,

“Without Me you can do nothing.”

On the other hand

...it is true that human beings tend automatically to think in terms of dichotomies in spite of being tripartite beings.  The current prejudice--one of convenience and the quarterly report--is that nothing is a trinity, that there is only matter and energy and that's all. Of course that forces one to think in increasingly in terms of division, since that is the lens we choose, and the wider view is that what we have is a multitude of  gifts, not of merit badges. In other words, it is extremely aggravating to us that there could be a view superior to ours--hence every other view--usually of the equal and opposite persuasion--is suspect indefinitely.

My son Stephen's thesis--to be released in book form next year--is that both Auden and Augustine took great pains to avoid thinking in terms of bipartite schisms and "party favors."  Even our good friend G. Washington warned, in vain, about the party spirit. How roundly this has been ignored!

A related theme: years ago I recall a song by Eric Burden which goes like this: "I'm just a man whose intentions are good/O Lord don't let me be misunderstood."  And this from a group called, "The Animals"!!!  This is a rather discomfiting song in that it is so full of self-pity; yet easily recognizable as the default mode of most of us, esp. me.  It of course takes a concerted effort to get out of self-pity; but it is also expected of us since no one likes a whiner.

I think sometimes that Western Christians do not take many pains to avoid this trap.  A sense of entitlement is probably the most deadly sin on earth (but don't take me literally--just a little hyperbole)
What it does is thrust us away from Christ and into the partisanship of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Romans, and Herod.  As we see in reality, there are far more than 2 parties in the system! But we usually settle for two- us, and our scaegoats/enemy du jour.

In other words, a Christian should wholly expect to be misunderstood, and accept it. After all, is it possible to explain the Trinity, esp. to those who are running headlong from God Himself, and have zero tolerance for not only Him but the Spirit and the Son as well?  Understanding in God's economy is a gift, not an accomplishment, which make faith entirely necessary, as I mentioned recently.

James is emphatic about being misunderstood. He would not have prayed an "Animals" prayer!  However the idea that we seek out suffering and conflict is also flatly contradicted in God's Word--all things are given to all people to give us joy--but paradoxically we most often settle for far less--and sometimes have the effrontery to blame God for our woes!  To be "understood" is to be unsatisfied with the truth that we don't even understand ourselves, and tell ourselves lies and half-truths day and night. I mean this across the board.

Solomon initially loved God as his father did, and hence God, for this any many other reasons, gave Solomon understanding beyond his own natural abilities.  But as in most human affairs, the kind of love that puts God and other people first, is the bedrock and all else follows from that. It is quite easily lost,  obviously.  And once again referring to the insightful pagan Camus, the alternative is raw competition and suicide. Only one can "win it all"  (whiner take all?) and so far, no one qualifies.

I do like to read my Dad's magazines and occasional articles because it keeps me in balance. He sends all his children The New Yorker, and it is one way for me to keep in touch across the great divide: which includes me being routinely "misunderstood."  However it should also be true of the Christian that, "I can live with that!"  And I do, all day long. My job does not allow me to lead a sheltered life!!!
Besides that, I don't have enough time or energy much less ability to untangle all that has been assumed about me--esp. since I make the grandest assumptions myself!  But in a sense, I believe it is also beneficial to be more than a bit nervous about this--we should worry about some things!

Subject to ongoing revision...!!!

pensees a la Feb 17 2012

In spite or possibly because the inherent complexity of the human mind, as systems and societies “complexify”,  there seems to be less light than ever on healthy human relating.

By this I specifically mean that we mix up our beliefs with our persons.  The whole person does not melt down, in the end, to the sum total of his/her opinions.  But when we attempt to do such,  this accomplishes only two ends: hostility and depersonalization.  It seems in particular in our media that if a well-known person expresses a single ludicrous (to “the important notes”) statement; it is the end of him or her—as if some kind of unspoken flawlessness is now required to be a significant person, even or especially in a volatile and impersonal and pseudo-ironic milieu of a billion human tides of opinion.  In a world where truth is not honored, or outlawed, one of course is logically only left with opinion, which is an open invitation to tyranny, as Solzhenitsyn pointed out during his brief sojourn in America. For every form of chaos there is a team of lawyers and politicos ready to create laws for their own convenience. No "side" immune.

This most basic of all errors about humanity, which among other logical errors is a “category mistake” of immense dimensions; a false paradigm; contaminates us at every level, even in our strange and increasingly inaccurate self-assessments.  It is a family-killer from top to bottom—we suddenly hold our spouses and other relatives to whatever ill-considered or misinterpreted remarks they may have made long ago—and keep a running tally of who did what to whom, even if it isn’t even about them!  Guilt by association runs rampant. Look at all the sorry assumptions that secular people make if they find out you go to church regularly, or even once! (It runs the opposite way as well) There flies out an instant stream of assumptions and permanent judgements and stereotypes that only seem to gather strength with time.

One of the more obvious reasons that prejudices grow is a kind of accelerating instant xenophobia, which may apply even to those who have spent decades together; it occurs at the drop of a hint of disagreement with a pet theory, organization, or ideology.  The other false assumption is that other people have opinions, but I have the facts; and in fact it is quite likely that I am a living breathing theory of everything that is no longer a theory but an obvious fact—“I think, therefore I am right” and the only people we then allow in that blessed circle are people who are maximally like unto ourselves—or rather our opinions--which also guarantees that we never really know ourselves or our individual allies, much less love a single enemy...

That this is technically illogical, impractical, counterproductive and as unfair as people can be, seems to occur to very few people. As a physician I have observed many, if not most, people so enamored with their church, their party, and their interpretation of “pop science” that thinking and considering other points of view outside of our “best-set-yet” is never considered. Thus it is that individuals make choices to avoid people outside their circle, and worse, never consider asking questions or even trying to be objective; nor of course considering, God forbid, what a True God would think of a person.

I have been not only judged but socially exiled by a certain small number of former friends.(Which hurts because I never had very many at any time--but more now than in the past...) Obviously this was partially my fault—one would really have to work hard at it to be 100% wrong . But I also found that those who set themselves up as judges in superficial matters tend to assume that people are worth far less than cultures, movements, and even fads. This would lead to the tendency to not believe in or practice forgiveness for any but the most pragmatic necessities.

It also seems that the more I write on this subject, the denser the underbrush becomes…is this a function of the times, or am I just not being clear?

The only suggestions I can make, off the cuff: for us to constantly ask ourselves if we are our enemy; if we prejudge, isolate, or attempt to destroy others, is it because we inwardly suspect them of being too much like ourselves, i.e. do we "project" our own secret darknesses and insecurities on others, and hence think the worst of "them" because we are terrified to think of our thoughts becoming naked to the world?  Don't assume anything about a person that is not absolutely bedrock and when there is no viable alternative. (Freud was right about this--but like many of us physicians and other science practitioners, he was a fish out of water when it came to metaphysics.)

Keep asking. Keep exploring. Don't rest, wrestle. Routinely enage ideas, but more importantly, people with whom you stridently disagree.  (Then decide against stridency!)

More later (of course)

"A word means exactly what I choose it to mean..."

After my trips to FL and Mobile U, I decided to do a minor word study on the word, "tolerance."  Some have suggested that this is the only remnant of a pantheon of old virtues. This may be due to the fact that "tolerance" is as slippery as its antecedent virtue, "humility." Some definitions are really rather clear esp. in terms of metallurgy; somewhat less so in medicine where tolerance can be for toxins; or against helpful medications as well.  Some claim for neutrality may be made in these definitions; but in other areas the polemic uses of the word greatly overshadow its practical or fuit-bearing uses.  I would tend of course to have more confidence in the medical and scientific usages.

This is actually the first time I have looked at a definition of the word, largely because it is one of those words whose meaning is both assumed (as a virtue) and tacit; it is a word that is invariably defined by the cultural mileu or the many tribes thereof; making its protean nature immediately evident to those who spend any time outside looking in at the zeitgeist.

I have spent an equal amount of time looking out and looking in; about 30 years apiece.  It is further problematic that there has been a power shift in that what was countercultural in my first thirty years has of course become the societal norm.  One might say that I have continued to be countercultural throughout my 60 plus years; not the least due to the fact that I don't tend to be beholden to culture since I have never gotten much out of it. My father attributes this to my nature-given contrarian aspect.  But of course this probably attributes too much to genetics. I always held a silent admiration for his own even more contrarian ways--I liken him to Robert Benchley's description of himself as a "militant non-joiner."  So far he and I tend more to cynicism--which I would contend has great worth; more of that another time.

The classic example of the self-defeating nature of terms like these is humility; as soon as one even thinks it about oneself, much less spits it out, it completely disappears; not unlike Linus' progressive ambitions to be a "world famous humble little country doctor."  It immediately casts oneself of an undeniable member of an elite that has attempted to elevate himself by self-contradictory means.  Most ordinary people who have no opportunity or desire to be looked on as execptional. have a word for this: "bullshit." They often and unintentionally have highlly developed "baloney detectors," something they hold in common with both children and cats--who instantly know-- by a process both unadorned and highly complex--who loves them "as is."  Grandmothers often tune into this quite naturally, but men have more difficulty (except where cats are concerned!) who tend to give up, tune out, and drop out.

(Not the case for Alathea and myself however. I am "'Father" but she's reluctant to put a label on Flo: "Who's that?"  Silence.)

This just shows that the complexity of the human brain is unfathomable and the materialists only flatter themselves--in every age--that they have reduced it to (also inexplicable)" strong forces".

I do not intend to do anything here but to reflect on my experiences and varying public usages of the word which probably have more to do with marketing one's self, or one's preferences.  The surface has not been scratched.  But it might be helpful if someday some of us could seperate the useful definitions of tolerance from the usages that are self-contradictory.  I suppose that the same could be said for the word " "love."  (2/14)  which could be anything from "I love Flo," to Ich liebe mein(e) Fuerher"

There is a difference, of course. Even beyond "good works".

Speaking of Flo, when I first met her she had a sign on the wall suggesting that flowers are not aware of their colors or fragrances--they are simply displayed and exuded; so it is with the truly loving, tolerant, and humble person.  If someone says it about us, the only valid response--unless a flatterer suceeds-- is surprise and unbelief.  This keys into Thoreau's observation  that, "If I knew that someone was coming to my house with the express intent of doing a me a good turn, I should flee for my life!"  Or Abbot's search for the elusive fly--"I got it! I got it!              I don't got it:("

LES REGRETS SONNET 38

Lucky: the man who measures out his days
among his equals--simple, honest, free,
not gripped by cramping fears or jealousies,
ruling a farmstead kingdom peaceably.

The miseries of grasping for place
do not obsess him. His feelings are unbound,
yet his desire, placid and passionless,
stops at the fence that guards his plot of ground.

Nor does he trouble his heart with any grand
affairs, but sets his hope on what is sure,
serving himself as master, court, and king:

Not wasting his substance in a foreign land.
Not risking his life in someone else's war.
Not wanting more. Not lacking anything.

--Joachim du Bellay translation by Maryann Corbett

Part the Third

I should explain that this laptop is being extraordinarily balky and fragments my paragaphs and unpredictably omits key phrases.  What I started out doing was responding to an essay/talk that my Dad did for the UU group of Naples, FL, in the Reagan era, prior to the destruction of the Berlin Wall.  It reflects the wisdom of that time, with some Eric Hoffer thrown in, equating Christianity and Communism, which was and is not such a popular position; altho it is true that Marxism in its idealism did borrow heavily from Christian concepts such as equality and justice, and may qualify as a variant.  (It's hard to be a complete original!!!)

The primary theme however is war; from a "hopeful Hobbesian" perspective--yes there is such a thing--or Hobbes too would have committed suicide!  But in spite of the prematurely declared "end of history," it seems that cold war anxieties may easily recur with different players, and all "victories" are brief and lead to defeat or major modification of expectations, including the nightmares.  Fukayama and the rest did not forsee that although atheism would crumble as a governing force and retreat back into "high culture" from whence it generally comes, that a countervailing force would soon arise from the mists of history; "Muslims in the Mist!"

My Dad's point, as also reflected in my dream, is that there is some equality of causation, and that the world secretly thrills at the destructive power it has "created". (borrowed, actually) Or as Camus said, "When we are all guilty, that will be democracy."  The triumph--supposed-- of democracy has been almost immediately followed by regression to a so-called theocracy threatened by Islamism. Everyone always seems to need a major scapegoat--minor players do not satisfy our lusts. (See James 4:1-4) And once again it is our technology that is largely responsible for 9/11, which would not have been possible without, well, science!

I think that Bill Watterston juxtaposed Calvin and Hobbes because their worldview was so similar, plus/minus a Supernature. That is, mankind is anything but intrinsically good, by whatever personal or collective standards are set up. So nothing new under the sun, just the same old two "roads diverging in the wood" of basic and  unresolvable assumptions which are not going to change. Which one is "The Road Less Travelled" depends on whom you ask. With my Dad growing like Hemingway in a Protestant culture, the step is actually an easy one--but will Calvin and Hobbes continue their friendship?

Calvin: "Let's go into the future and see what I'm like as a teenager, OK?"

Hobbes: "Let's not, ok?"

Got to go with Dr. Schuler II so more later...in psuedo-digestible lumps

I dreamt that I was somewhere on the West Coast and happened upon a plot to use a local high school as a place to detonate a nuclear bomb.  As often happens in the movies, the bomb was on a timer; but the plotters had changed their mind.  However no one could stop the timer and so we had only 30 minutes to get as far away from it as possible.  On foot!

 At any rate, we found a house about the time of the explosion, then seeing the usual mushroom cloud, from behind the trees, all of which would be gone momentarily. The dream concluded before the blast wave hit—probably beyond the capacity of the human mind to visualize.  After that I replayed the scenes on and off going in and out of a lighter form of sleep.

The tone was that of personal and group guilt.  There was an unspoken collusion the details of which are obscure in the dream.  But I think if there is basic theme to my Dad’s essay, it would be that of collective responsibility, as opposed to the old warrior ethic where it was the individual with the biggest sword and largest bicep that clawed his way to the top.  But as he has said more frequently, my Dad likes to point out that you or I are just as dead by an arrow as by a nuclear weapon.  To him, the numbers may be moot once a person is actually dead.  Solomon said as much in Ecclesiastes.

OLD SCHOOL DEJA VU

“LAST NIGHT I HAD THE STRANGEST DREAM/ I EVER DREAMED BEFORE…”  --Peter Seegrrr

I believe that my dream was provoked in part by my  Amageddon” in the Reagan era.  The second contributing factor to said dream is probably spending the day at Mobile U. with Dr Schuler (IV) i.e. son Stephen and having an ostensibly exciting day followed by complete exhaustion.

I am also reviewing the story of Joseph so am emboldened to return to one of my favorite deportments, dream interpretation.

Personal Black Holes

Disclaimer:
This is my first attempt to use the new version of Dragonspeak version 11.0 on this blog.  If there appears to be some level of frustration in my style or content, this may be the reason!  :-)

It occurred to me in reading about the story of Joseph in Genesis that faith in God is not passed on from generation to de/generation.  Joseph's brothers appeared to be suffering from a lack of purpose or boredom.  They did manage to get in trouble and embarrass or endanger their father on a number of occasions.  They certainly had no sense of mission.

It would appear that only Joseph maintained the faith of his 3 progenitors.  In fact if anything he went beyond both Jacob and Isaac and hence was promoted to a position of messianic proportions.

The family traditions were of no value to him once he had been sold into slavery; in fact, his first son by his first Egyptian wife was named Manasseh, which is very much like the word for  "Forget."
In fact he said: "It is because God has made me forget all my trouble and all my fathers household."

Troubles indeed!

This is the basic problem of materialism, which is the only thing we inherit from our childhood in the context of what Flannery O'Connor called, "practical atheism."

To be childish generally exhibits cruelty, and selfishness, not kindness or considering others except to gain more for ourselves.  To be infantile takes this many degrees further.

All this in the pursuit of the same kind of happiness that one experiences after a fine meal.

If this continues, as it often does, one comes to routinely exalt unhappiness, witness persecution as entertainment, and to accept or love  injustices even to the point of exalting criminality. Irony replaces justice as the ultimate goal.  Entertainment value is one of the few values to survive and quickly becomes an absolute, as we see in the West.  Neil Postman points this out quite well especially in regards to television news.

This is generally true of late-term civilizations and family progression by entropy.

I don't think anyone can argue honestly that mankind does not base its solutions to its problems on selfishness, so-called enlightened self-interest. Which is different from infantilism only by degree and by the amount of denial involved.  This is reinforced by the defense mechanisms of intellectualization and rationalization, as I have mentioned several times before.

This of course makes death necessary--I cannot imagine colonizing the entire universe with powerful infants.

Even biologically we seem to be mostly in darkness.  The apples of our eyes turn out to be actually dual vortices that suck in light while 99% of our bodies remain in darkness much more absolute than the darkest night.  There is always the fantasy–possibility that we can give out light, like Superman or Moses, but the eye and the ear are "hunter-gatherers."  We generally resort to artificial light which gives us more light to work with, that is to suck in more energy but above all more information.  How we organize this information is equally important as to how we organize this energy.

It is impossible for man to "shine," except in the sense that the moon does. The "apple" is always black even in the brightest light. While we are experts at combustion and by it we subsist, it generally only produces heat and chemicals and breakdown products thereof.  Like the princple of information theory,there has to be not just disorganized energy but actual information input from the outside in order to generate secondary information that is of any value to the organism.

The lesser from the greater, as far as physics goes.

We do utilize various shields from the greater; some of these are physical/normal limitations; but many are chosen. Men's traditions, for example, shield us from our own physical selfishness and so we play a part in creating and sustaining them--and pity the person who lodges or creates too far afield from them... he may be persecuted of course--but more likely he will find himself beyond the pale of the common understandings and compromises by which culture operates.  One may observe, as many have, that cultural understandings take precedence over "raw truth" in almost all instances.  That reminds me of the conclusion of "The War Prayer" in which the Messenger is dismissed because "What he said made no sense." Thus the result is UNstudied ignorance.

And materialism.  Whenever you hear the word "spiritual," in contemporary usage be alert that the usage is only to exalt the speaker him or herself --because we have maxed out the word "gusto!" So what else is left, eh?

Do we not know that or routines and acceptance of the lot of others and the implied impotency of "God," are two of the meanest  and oldest and most fragile threads in the universe?  And that they break every time; and in short order.  We do not need the clip joint of the Fates.

As I was about to say before this program and computer so rudely interrupted me--I would like to tell the wondrrous story of some overlooked musicians whom I have recently resurrected from my archives.  I was inspired to take another group of looks at these after a recent article on...well, who, without a search engine, has heard of Mark Heard?  Hint: the last time he was at Cornerstone I had the dubious privilege to kneel beside him as he was having his next to last heart attack during one of his performances; waiting for the ambulance, as I got to do a lot in subsequent years at C-stone.  He was 41 and didn't live out the year.

On the Rd. agin=)

And, no, these are not "fellow travellers," and, yes, no harm to these or other animals was done during the  making of this picture. Cats are Curious and like wheelwells and recently turned-off engines.  Usually kittens are the ones that get run over, sadly--these are (ahem) "too big to fail."

We are currently in Stockbridge, just south of Atlanta, the city of big dreams. I swear if I hear one more song with the phrase, "broken dreams" in it, I will swear off music.

Well maybe naught!

I have in fact of late wanted to "sing" the praises of