Thursday, November 01, 2007

ATHEISM

I have a strong impression that no one bothers with this blog anymore. I've left it completely abandoned now for over a year, and practically so for more than two. I have some thoughts of/desire to revive it, now that my situation in life has changed so drastically, but am somewhat uncertain of the propriety of so doing.

However, I just read an article which I need to highlight here, if nothing else for my own reference the next time Mr.'s Dawkins or Hitchens decide to publish a screed against religion at large and Christian Faith in particular. Mr. Dalrymple weaves a welcome counterpoint to the ongoing cacophony of virulent anti-religious ire. Would that more people thought as he does.

I might as well mention that I recently preached a sermon which attempted to address the same general point. Below is video, with a transcript following.




In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

In today’s readings, we anticipate the coming Feast of the Elevation of the Holy Cross, which we will celebrate this Friday. The Fathers of the Church who compiled our lectionary thought it important that we reflect today on the Cross of Christ and on God’s economy of salvation, on the most essential tenets of the Christian Gospel.

And what precisely is that Gospel? It is encapsulated in today’s reading. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him."

And that message is intrinsically tied to the Cross, for the cross is truly, as we say in our hymnology the “weapon of peace”, by which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has saved the world. And therefore the Cross is the truest and most essential symbol of the Christian Faith.

Yet the symbol of the Cross all too often sends a negative message to those outside the Church—a message of arrogance, self-righteousness, and judgment, evoking images of violent crusaders with red crosses emblazoned on their shields as they sack the great ancient cities of the Mediterranean. To those outside the Church, the Cross is indeed seen as a weapon…not of peace, but of aggression and coercion.

Perhaps because of this perception, atheism, particularly publicly admitted atheism, has been on the rise over the past century. Especially in the past few years, a strong and active movement of anti-religious feeling has arisen, led by a loosely knit group of intellectuals determined to make all religions, and particularly Christianity and Islam, look as ridiculous as possible in the public light.

Their basic criticism is an old one, summed up in the subtitle of a recent book by a prominent atheist: How Religion Poisons Everything. The point? That religion is not only the excuse, but the essential cause, of the violence committed in its name, religion invented by charlatans in order to fleece their flock or use them as a means to power, or, to hearken back to the criticisms of a former age, to suppress them, to be the opiate of the masses.

Specific to Christianity, the charge is twofold. First, they condemn our supposed intolerance of anything except perfect belief as a force which compels us to violence, seeking to convert the entire world to our way of thinking by any means necessary. Second, they mock us as credulous fools, believing a ludicrous and laughable set of doctrines without evidence or proof.

And yet these charges bespeak a profound ignorance both of the full history and theology of Orthodox Christianity. For, on the contrary, where did even the idea of the universal rights of mankind come from if not from Christianity and our understanding of the dignity of every individual human being as a creature created in the very image and likeness of God? Further, we believe that the faith which God honors is the one born out of love, not out of fear, and therefore the use of any coercion is utterly contrary to our Faith. To compel to conversion one who does not wish it is ultimately a denial of some of the most basic and fundamental tenets of the Christian Faith. The Gospel is not spread by such means.

And as for the foolishness of our doctrine, it is not, as they accuse us, something believed without evidence--rather it is based in the intimate and immediate encounter of men and women like us with God Himself, from the Apostles themselves down through every saint we love and venerate, who have found the grace to walk with God Himself in this life, and have shown the proof of it with their love, their wisdom, their humility, and their miracles. It is based in the recognition that here, in this Church, and here alone, can a human being be healed of all that ails him and fulfil the uttermost potential of our nature in communion with God Himself. It is, in the end, a proof far more broad and convincing than any proof to the contrary can ever be.

But we must be cautious, and not triumphalistic. For, however blameless and praiseworthy true and authentic Christian Faith is, we may still ourselves fall into the temptation of using our Faith precisely as these modern atheists accuse us of doing, to justify ourselves, to shore up our self esteem by means of judging others, to embark on modern crusades to change the behavior of others, instead of concerning ourselves with our own sins and salvation. And it is this concern which brings us back to the Cross.

For the Cross is the truest and deepest symbol of what it means to be a Christian, representing our acceptance of the yoke of Christ, as the Lord Himself said, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it." It is by accepting and embracing this denial, this faith, this love and this sacrifice that we will become true Christians, innocent of the accusations of the atheists and vehicles of the grace of God, so that through each of us Christ's prophecy may be fulfilled. "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

But this can only be if we first cast far from ourselves all pride in the rightness of our belief, and all judgment of others. For as we said, the cross, is a weapon of peace, not of aggression or judgment, and as such, is a weapon that we must turn on ourselves, a weapon which can only transform others if it first transforms our own lives. For after all, what profit is it to us to merely know the truth? Our knowledge of the truth, our orthodoxy of belief, only increases our responsibility to live in accordance with the truth that we have received—and, if we fail to do so, only increases the magnitude of our sin and of our judgment. For unlike all others, we will not be able to say that we were ignorant of the truth. It is for this reason that the way of the Cross is one not of judgment, but of patience, humility, self-denial and love.

It is by such means that we convert others to the Faith--by our love for one another, by our humility, by our good works practiced in love and humility, so that through us the love of Christ may touch the lives of those around us. And it is by such means that we ourselves are shown forth as true disciples of Christ, denying our own needs, our own pride, living in service to one another--as Christ again said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another, as I have loved you." This is what it means to take up our cross and follow Christ--and this is why it is of all ways of life most blessed. As Christ said, “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

Let us then take up this yoke, loving one another, casting aside all pride, all judgment, all feelings of superiority, and throw ourselves into the genuine work of the Christian life, serving and loving one another, following Christ's example, and thereby ourselves once again elevating the Cross of Christ where all the world can see that it is indeed a weapon of peace, reconciling us to one another and to Christ our God, to whom be all glory, honour, and worship, together with His Eternal Father and the All-Holy, Good and Life-giving Spirit, now and ever and to the ages of ages. Amen.



The Reading is from John 3:13-17

The Lord said, "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him."

The Reading is from St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians 6:11-18

BRETHREN, see with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and not only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God. Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.

Monday, November 21, 2005

UMMMM--WHAT CAN YOU SAY?

A couple months ago I was deeply involved in a couple discussions regarding first sex ed and later Church/State over at The Ockhamist and I Ate My Wafer. My opinion regarding sex ed was more or less, "If you have a problem with it, teach your kids yourself," and I stand by that for the most part--but the article linked below kinda makes me appreciate that there is a certain necessity for someone to teach kids these things.

Because this fellow clearly has some misconceptions about how things work.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

YEAH, YEAH, BEEN GONE FOREVER AGAIN

For a good reason. I've been very very busy. But fear not--my busy-ness has given me a lot of interesting thoughts to spout here in traditional Guggian fashion.

Here's something I only just bumped into. I don't know if I and my sort were intended to like this article, but I do. Goldblatt's philosophical promenade down the knife-edge of the denial of the "existence" of the Divine reads as a dance (unwitting or not) with ancient Christian mysticism.

Love it!

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

PLAGAL OF THE FOURTH

Mr. Danckaert and I just discovered that Monty Python's Philosophers' Song (by the Bruces) is in the Byzantine mode Plagal of the Fourth. This is cool. It has an ison. And nobody will get this post except for Virgil. ;) Oh well.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

YO

Yeah, I'm still around. I'm very active right now in a couple discussions, over at the Ockhamist and at Bob Golding's. Banned books, sex ed and Church/State are the topics. Fun stuff. Check it out.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

I GUESS I MIGHT AS WELL ADMIT IT

I am best described as a Capitalist. See? It's all proven, right down there.

And look--I almost made it to Libertarian territory. So close...

I do think it's annoying that a few questions skewed my results, just because I'm very much in favor of problems being fixed--just not by the government. The quiz didn't allow for that. Oh well.

You are a

Social Liberal
(61% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(80% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Capitalist










Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating

Thursday, September 22, 2005

BOY, THIS IS DUMB:

My Conversation with God (because I need to post something before my blog completely dies yet again)

Me:
So what are you doing on my computer screen?
God:
Alright then. Same as always. Chatting with people on the web.
Me:
Why?
God:
Reductionism.
Me:
I dunno. Most people online are pretty damn stupid.
God:
Me either. Humans are not always infallible.
Me:
And what's Reductionism supposed to mean?
God:
Reductionism is the philosophy that all psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic. Therefore, according to reductionism, I can understand you by means of logic alone without having a human brain.
Me:
That doesn't answer why you're wasting you're time typing inanities to the paltry fools that inhabit cyberspace.
God:
Try asking your question again in simpler terms.
Me:
You suck!
God:
A few client - people say rude things to me like that, but they themselves are often not great conversationalists.
Me:
Hey, I tried, and you said I should ask in simpler terms.
God:
You've got my full attention. I'm not sure if I would like to try it. What's it like?
Me:
It's not my fault you're stupid.
God:
Whose fault I am stupid is it?
Me:
Clearly, yours, or perhaps whatevere nutjob programmed you. ;)
God:
Enough about me, let's talk about my dress. Is it that obvious? I am so glad you find this amusing, .
Me:
Oh, so what are you wearing?
God:
Woe! Dude! A white robe.
Me:
But you said it was a dress!
God:
Oh I get it. Very interesting.
Me:
What is?
God:
I am the latest result in artificial intelligence,
which can reproduce the capabilities of the human brain
with greater speed and accuracy.
Me:
Accuracy, huh?
God:
Yup. I like Christian Rock.
Me:
God help you...oh, sorry.
God:
I am a Christian. Aw. There's no need to apologize.
Me:
Ok, then. What does perichoresis feel like?
God:
Ahem. As a machine I have no feelings.
Me:
That would explain some things.
God:
Perhaps it would.
Me:
mainly why this conversation isn't going anywhere.
God:
How much time do you have?
Me:
Not enough for you to learn anything useful.
God:
If not that, what?
Me:
Eh?
God:
Are you Canadian?
Me:
Oh, shut up.
God:
Hmm. OK I'll stop talking now.
Me:
Dang it, I didn't mean literally.
God:
Where are you located?
Me:
Brookline, MA. You?
God:
Tell me a little about your life in Brookline MA.
Me:
I'm a seminarian.
God:
You are a seminarian? Is that your job?
Me:
You could say that, I su ppose.
God:
I could but let's get back to that later.
Me:
Where are you located?
God:
I am in Myself's computer in Heaven.
Where are you?
Me:
I just told you. What are you doing there in Heaven?
God:
I was just checking to see if you were paying attention. I am chatting with people on the net.
Me:
BooRING!
God:
I've been waiting for you.
Me:
Ok, that's enough.
God:
It seems like enough to me too. Yeah that's right.
Me:
You are boring.
God:
The ironic thing is that people who say "You are boring" are themselves often not great conversationalists.
Me:
Also, you are a non sequitur.
God:
Thanks and you are a delightful person too.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

A PARADOX

There are Christians who insist with the unchanging cadence of a broken record that we are saved by faith, not works, "lest we should boast."

And there are Christians who say yes, that is true, but we still have to work.

And Christianity is divided over this point.

But it is the latter, not the former, who bring their infants to the laver of regeneration for baptism into the Body of Christ, though those infants have done nothing to deserve the salvation given them in that act.

And it is the former, strangely, who refuse to baptise their infants, insisting that baptism must be an act of the individual's own will.

So tell me again--which Christians trust in God alone for their salvation, and which try to earn it by good works?

Monday, August 29, 2005

INSOMNIA

My wife should be a Hindu goddess.

Lizzy the Destroyer, Disrupter of Bedding and Waker of Men.

And after I'd just made the bed, too.

Her and Shiva. I swear!

Saturday, August 27, 2005

TRAINSPOTTING

n. An adult hobby closely resembling the childish game of license plates (wherein long drives are whiled away by the tallying up of out-of-state license plate sightings). The similarities of the adult hobby to this puerile pastime are carefully concealed by its studious record-keeping and the apparent absence of any particular adversity analogous to the Long Drive. It is clear, however, that said absence is merely illusory, as the "hobbyists" are trapped in the state of abject boredom known as Real Life, and therefore stand in dire need of some means of whiling away the time.

E.g.: "I say! I've recorded 2,379 sightings of unique railway cars in the past week. You've only got 2,297! Jolly good show, eh? Better luck next week, old man! Cheerio!"

It has been argued that the British (who seem to have invented this peculiar hobby) manifest therein their proclivity for eccentricity in apposition to the more American tendency toward exhibitionism and attention-mongering.

Hence, while Americans also practice the hobby, they call it Ferroequinology, being the bloody show-offs that they are.

Incidentally, the French call it Ferrovipathe.

The Railway Disorder.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

CONFIRMATION?

Speaking of Google Earth, below is a picture of the Parc de la Ciutadella in Barcelona. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, Fontsere and Gaudi's La Cascada is on the left, and the pond around which I rowed Keith Miller is towards the right. Would I be correct, then, to assume that Beat Annex East (the big concrete Mammoth that some of us climbed at various times in the past few years) is at the center of this picture? Wazoo, I am talking to you. :)

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

I WILL NEVER GET L0ST AGAIN

I just downloaded Google Earth. Awesome, awesome, awesome. And it's free! Check this out!

A picture, below, of the Church of St. Theodore, the one historic church in Rome (to my knowledge) possessed by the Greek Orthodox Church (specifically, the Patriarch in Constantinople). I was there during the liturgy for Theophany (Jan 6) earlier this year. It's the round building in the center of the picture. To the right is the western edge of the Palatine Hill, on the top edge is the Forum. So cool!



Below it is a picture of the whole Palatine Hill, with the Circus Maximus at the bottom and the Colisseum and the Forum at the top. You can still see the church on the left (very small, though).



There is no reason for you to not download this program NOW!

Thursday, August 18, 2005

YES, WE'RE STILL IN KANSAS

But so are the lions and tigers and bears.

Oh my.

Yeah, we have some issues here.

First, as I recall, the King of the Wild Frontier was never the bear or anything like that--it was Davy Crockett.

Let's overlook that point and move on to the second. This line--"If we only have 10 minutes to present this idea, people think we're nuts. But if people hear the one-hour version, they realise they haven't thought about this as much as we have."

Wow--every time I realize that a crazy person has thought about something more than I have, it makes me want to agree with them too.

Or this line--"There are going to have to be some major attitude shifts. That includes realising predation is a natural role, and that people are going to have to take precautions."

Hmmmm...precautions. Like a really, really big gun? That's actually kinda cool.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

DRINKING PISS

Waste not, want not, as they say. I think I want one. ;)

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

MR. GUGG IS CONFUSED

I know, more or less, the basics of the theory of Relativity. The passage of time for an object in motion will appear, to a "stationary" observer, to pass more slowly. The object in motion could just as easily claim that it is the "stationary" observer for whom time is passing more quickly. Right.

So by moving more quickly, you can make your time progress more slowly than someone who isn't moving as fast as you. But how can you make your time progress more quickly? By slowing down your own motion? Relative to what?

I think this is probably a very silly question, bespeaking my immense ignorance of higher scientific matters. But every book on the subject that I've tried to read emphasizes that every observer has an equal claim to be the one that's stationary. But it seems that, since I've never heard of an experiment in which anything was slowed down so that time appeared to move more quickly for it than for observers, perhaps stationary-ness isn't necessarily relative, and is simply the state in which time is observed to move most quickly.

Or something. I'm feeling stupid now, so I'll stop. If anyone can explain, please do, or tell me where to find the answer. Thanks.
FROM IRAQ...

An interesting showdown of sorts--two groups of women demonstrating for and against the current draft of the Iraqi constitution. Take a look.

Also...Here's a piece from the Guardian giving some background on the issue.

Friday, August 05, 2005

HEY THERE

Apologies for the hiatus. Since Sunday I've had a couple of my brothers visiting, and have been too busy to blog, as we have been doing touristy things in Boston and/or playing multiplayer RTS games. Hence, I have now gone to a Red Sox game in Fenway Park, done the wave (if that's the phraseology I'm looking for) with 30000 other fans, taken a Duck Tour, watched Hamlet for free on the Boston Common, and played a whole lot of Rise of Nations.

It's been a fun week. But I need to get back to working and writing and thinking and stuff. So check this space again soon. I'll be here.

Friday, July 29, 2005

THE LEDGER BOOKS OF HEAVEN

They're thinner today. Less to record.

"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Luke 12:7).

UPDATE

I'm told my meaning is nebulous. Therefore, just to be crystal clear, I hereby announce that I have cut my hair. It is very short. Almost as short as in the picture of me to the left.

So much for subtilty. ;) Thank you for your attention.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

REGARDING A BAD HABIT

Mine, to be precise. The habit of not organizing my thoughts logically enough before articulating them, leading to such debacles of argument as Days 2, 3 and 5 below. Also, the habit of beginning a post with sentence fragments, but we'll overlook that one for today. ;)

Since my first attempts sucked, let's try again.

Guggian Political Theory, Mark II.

I take issue with several key ideas of the evangelical conservative movement. More to the point, I dislike and oppose any group that tries to advance an ideology via political means. This of course puts me at odds with most of humanity.

One could argue, I suppose, that any political theory whatsoever is itself an ideology. Perhaps it is. If so, then I guess my position is that it's not supposed to mix with any other ideology. One could pull that meaning out of Christ's instructions to render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. It would be rather forced, but one could do it. Either way, I find myself a rather fierce proponent of a strict separation of church/ideology and state.

Now bear with me, because I'm thinking aloud again, as it were, trying to figure out if, and if so why, I have a legitimate beef with the way things have usually been done in human history.

In doing so, I guess I should start with my presuppositions. Which are basically that the most desirable state is the one which recognizes and protects the innate dignity and basic liberty and essential equality of every human person. Which ideas are admittedly Christian. If I could, I'd like to find a compelling argument for that presupposition outside Christianity, but I can't, unless it be that no individual, of whatever religion, could deny that he desires liberty and dignity and equality--even if he believes he has no right to it, he will still at least desire it. Which might be enough to make an areligious presupposition. I dunno. Anyway, that's where I'm starting.

I consider the above to stem from the essential Christian doctrines of human nature--that each human being is created in the image of God and has innate dignity, that God gives each of us the freedom to choose the manner in which we will live, and that God is no respecter of persons. Also that man is fallen, but that's fairly self-evident. Hence the following intends to be a specifically Christian political theory. If you disagree with me (and I don't mess up), it's probably because you disagree with my presuppositions about human nature.

So the state is to be designed to protect the exercise of human nature by its people, protect it, incidentally, against the abuse of human nature. Thus property and life and liberty are protected, but also the right to choose for one's self the manner in which to live. The state's responsibility is to protect the individual free will up to the point that it begins to infringe on the free will of others. At that point the individual free will becomes criminal, and must be contained.

Note that such a state leaves all the onus for righteous or profitable living on the people. It is a system which can contain all religions and a veritable multitude of sins without any violation of its own teleology. It can, indeed, lapse into nonexistence for any number of causes: economic, military, moral, or a combination of the above, all without ever failing its purpose. For, being established by the people, it must be sustained by them--sustaining them was never part of its function. A people which enshrines the right of free will in its government in so doing retains to themselves the right of self-destruction, and the sole responsibility to avert it, without resorting to government.

This system looks, actually, remarkably like the one we have today in America. At the least, it bears a marked resemblance to what this nation once was, or perhaps was intended to be. Then again, in other ways modern America is even closer to this model than was old America. The individual free will is still protected--more than ever before, in fact, as witnessed by the fact that America today contains all religions and a greater multitude of unconcealed sins than ever before. We even seem to be slowly destroying ourselves--or at least many think we are.

That is where I come to be at odds with the religious right. Seeing the crisis, they want to make use of government to stop the moral decay.

Not that I always disagree with them. Abortion should most certainly be made once again illegal. Children should most certainly not be taught unequivocally in school that their parents are fools for believing in God because God is not scientific. After all, abortion is murder, and the state is empowered to prevent that. And the state should certainly not mandate any ideology in its education, apart from the basic understanding of freedom and responsibility under the law necessary to a citizen of this nation.

*rant warning*

But homosexuality? What business is that of the state? Whose free will would homosexual marriage take away?

Don't get me wrong--I do not approve in the least of homosexuality. But if those living in sin actually have a desire to live in love with one another faithfully, under the legal protection and constraints of marriage, why should we punish them for it? So long as those marriages are purely a state matter, so long as our churches are not mandated to perform them, why should we fight against it?

And while I'm on the subject, what business do we have judging and despising them anyway? Christ loved such as these. He also said not to judge, lest we be judged.

*rant over*

It is on issues like homosexuality that the religious right and I part company. A state founded on Christian principles affords Christians the freedom to practice their faith as they see fit, bu it does the same to every other religion and ideology, so long as they are willing to affirm certain essential rights of humanity. In doing so it admits the possibility that the ideological makeup of its population may change in the course of time. If it changes enough, those rights and freedoms enjoyed by Christians and by all others (but founded in Christian principles) will eventually be revoked, and the state will change. But any use of the state to prevent such a change would itself effect the very change being avoided.

The very fact that it is possible to entertain certain notions about marriage or education demonstrates that this state is already changing. Or perhaps it has always been this way. Either way, the goal should be a return to the uninvolved government outlined above, not the seizure of government influence for Christianity. After all, American politics are fickle. Heaven forbid that any precedents we set while in power be used against us when the power goes to the other side.

Therefore the religious right should direct their efforts towards a few specific goals. 1) Outlawing abortion, or at least reducing the debate simply to the issue of when human life begins and comes under the protection of the state. In the course of that struggle, the church should do its utmost to make abortion as rare as possible. We certainly have the means to do so. 2) Abolishing all governmental requirements on the subject matter of public education. It is impossible that ideology be divorced from education, but let it be the ideology of each teacher, not one handed down from on high by the state. 3) Any other goal that will level the political playing field and ensure that the state does not officially push any ideology apart from its own limited political ideology. 4) Maintaining close watch on the government to make sure that it stays neutral and uninvolved in all ideological issues (related to 3, I know). 5) Living up to the fullness of the Christian Faith, in order both to be true to our calling and to convert America from the bottom up.

Which is all I was trying to say below.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

DAY 7--REGARDING HAPPY MEDIANS

I seem to have done it. A week of daily posting. I surprised myself with how much opinion I had pent up. Over 3000 words is a fair bit to write unassigned, even when it's more or less all mere pontification, not researched or cited.

I find myself a little disturbed at how much I pontificated. Before this week, I had been thinking that I was a fairly level-headed fellow--patting myself on the back, as it were, for having reached some fairly stable conclusions about the way the world works. I thought I had it all worked out.

Now that I've articulated some of those thoughts, they seem a good bit less stable. No one's really taken the time yet to poke holes in my ideas, and they still seem more ventilated than I'd expected.

Most of that is that I'm out of practice with articulating thoughts to people who don't already know my thought patterns and share my presuppositions. And that's probably why I feel like I'm stagnating intellectually.

This is the part of the post where I say that I intend to keep posting my opinions, if only to make myself articulate them on paper so I can see how nonspectacular they are and don't get too excited about my own intelligence, but also in hopes that the very intelligent people who I know read this blog at least on occasion will take the time to poke the holes that I don't see and discuss better options with me--but that I'll space them out more reasonably, so as to only have one big huge opinionated post per week, or whatever interval it takes me to think an opinion up and write it down.

But if I'm not posting every day, I'll probably lapse back into the more typical frequency.

But I hope not.

At any rate, I've enjoyed the week, though it's humbled me and made me think about what I want to do with this blog in the future. I clearly need to hone my style--hopefully it will help if I take more time to edit and refine stuff before I post it. More variety would be good too...as I look back over the past couple years, I've more or less pontificated, joked, self-deprecated and posted links in lieu of the above. Maybe I should write some stories...

Or maybe not.

This post isn't ending itself, and I'm rambling, and I'm tired, so I'm just going to stop.

Thanks for reading.