Month: August 2002

  • What Reality do You Live Under?


    We have no choice but to live in harmony with what we believe to be true.  Once we have a conviction that life is A and not B we will automatically act on this belief.  For this reason I think that one of the most important activities we can perform is to examine our underlying beliefs.  The structure of our beliefs form our worldview.  Life in a multicultural, multi-viewpoint society means that we are constantly trying to relate to people who literally live in a different reality than we do.  Their worldview predisposes them to act in a particular way and to consider certain ideas right and others wrong, some actions to be good and others evil.  Unless we understand the foundations of various worldviews, we have no hope of understanding other people and we are doomed to work at cross purposes unaware.


    I'm not suggesting that mere understanding of another person's worldview will lead to goodness, harmony, the alignment of the planets, universal justice, or a shortcut to the Generalized Universal Theorem.  On the other hand, only understanding of another view offers real hope for communication unlike the false "tolerance" preached by the political correctness gurus who assume that lack of critique of another's view is sufficient to promote societal cohesion.


    Yesterday, I said that there are four distinct worldviews to which people in this day and age subscribe and that various philosophies and divergent doctrines are subsets of these four views.  As I was making my notes last night, I realized that the distinctions separating Eastern Pantheistic Monism and it's Western version - New Age thought could arguably be great enough to justify separating the two into a fourth and fifth category.  I still think that Eastern Pantheistic Monism provides the overarching worldview which makes New Age thought possible, but I have decided to treat the two separately. 


    I had also thought I would be constructing a table.  Four (now five) views of the seven basic questions would be clearly delineated in a side by side comparison for easy reference.  That's what comes of assumptions.  I could still make such a table, but it wouldn't be a Xanga post, it would be a wall chart.  So scrap that one.


    Instead, here is my comparison of Worldviews.  It's long. 


    Christian Theism -


    Christian theism dominated the view of Western society for close to a millennium.  This is not to say that everyone believed all the premises of Christian Theism, but our systems of law and government, ideas of justice and morality, and beliefs about the nature of the universe and the possibility of science were almost universal in their scope and application.  For this reason I'm placing Christian Theism first so that the later worldviews - some of which grew out of challenge to the premises of Christian Theism can be understood in context.


    Ultimate Reality - God is infinite, personal (triune), transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign and good.


    Nature of the World - God created the cosmos ex nihilo (out of nothing) to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system.


    Nature of Man - Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, predisposition to relationship, and creativity.


    Knowledge - Human beings can know the world around them because God has designed them with the capacity to do so.  (God is rational and man created  in His image is rational.)  In addition to our ability to know through reason, we can know through revelation (God is able to communicate truth to man that man cannot know through reason alone.)


    History - Human beings were created good, but through the Fall the image of God has become defaced though not so ruined as to be incapable of restoration.  Through the work of Christ, God redeemed humanity and began the process of restoring humanity to goodness, though any given person may choose to reject that redemption.


    Death - For each person death is a gate leading to either life with God and his people or to eternal separation from God, which is to say eternal separation from that which is ultimately real.


    Ethics - Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving.)


    Naturalism


    Ultimate Reality - Matter exists eternally and is all there is.  God does not exist.


    Nature of the World - The cosmos exists in a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system.  (Every action has a specific "natural" cause including the behavior of man - the sense of free will is an illusion that we possess because we do not have perfect awareness of the causes of our actions.)


    Nature of Man - Human beings are complex "machines", personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand.


    Death - Death is the extinction of personality and individuality.


    History - History is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect but without any overarching purpose.


    Ethics - Ethics is related only to human beings.  Values are manmade.


    Knowledge - Consciousness and capacity for reason are emergent properties of matter.


    This last premise is a soft spot of Naturalism which in great part has led to the rise of the postmodern view as outlined below.


    Eastern Pantheistic Monism  - My sister deserves a space to comment here.  She volunteered to define this one for me and came up with "A view of life based on Monks worshipping Panthers on the Eastern Seaboard."


    Ultimate Reality - The essence, the soul of any person is the essence, the soul of the cosmos.  Each person is God.  God is the one, infinite, impersonal, ultimate reality.  That is, God is the cosmos.  God is all that exists, nothing exists that is not God.  If anything that is not God appears to exist it is illusion.  In other words anything that exists as a separate and distinct object - this chair not that one; this rock, not that tree; me, not you - is an illusion.  It is not our separateness that gives us reality, it is out oneness.  Ultimate reality is beyond distinction - it simply IS.


    Nature of the World - Some things are more one than others.  Reality is a hierarchy of "appearances."  Some appearances/illusions are closer than others to being at one with the One.  many (if not all) roads lead to the One.


    Nature of Man - To realize one's oneness with the cosmos is to pass beyond the illusion of personality.


    Death - Death is the end of individual, personal existence, but it changes nothing essential in a person's nature.  Human death signals the end of an individual embodiment of the soul.  No human being in the sense of an individual or person survives death.  The soul survives but the soul is impersonal.  When the soul is reincarnated it becomes another person.  Thus Eastern Pantheistic Monism teaches immortality of the soul through reincarnation, not personal and individual immortality, the personal and individual cannot survive because they are illusions.


    History - To realize one's oneness with the One is to pass beyond time.  Time is unreal.  History is cyclical.


    Knowledge - To realize one's oneness with the One is to pass beyond knowledge.  In this sense the word 'realize' does not imply nor does it depend upon consciousness or reason.  The realization is experiential.  The principle of noncontradiction does not apply where ultimate reality is concerned.  To BE is not to know.


    Ethics - To realize one's oneness with the One is to pass beyond good and evil; the cosmos is perfect in every point.
                         This is the touchiest part of Eastern thought because people refuse to deny morality.  They continue to act as if some things are good and others are evil.  Moreover, Eastern Pantheistic Monism confirms the concept of karma.  Karma is the notion that one's present fate is the result of past action, one's present life circumstances result from action in a previous life.  karma follows from the general principle that nothing that is real ever passes out of existence.  It may take century upon century for the soul to find its way back to the One, but no soul will ever not be.
         On its way back to the One, the soul passes through whatever series of illusory forms its past action requires.  If you have "sinned," there is no God to cancel debt and forgive.  The sin must and will be worked out.  However, a person may choose his specific future acts and thus karma does not imply determinism or fatalism.
         This sounds very much like a description of a moral universe.  People should do good, otherwise they shall reap the consequences.  Tow things should be noted, however.  The basis for doing good is not so that good will be done or to benefit an individual soul (self or other - remember there is no distinction).  Karma demands that every soul suffer for past 'sins', so there is no value in alleviating suffering.  The soul so helped will have to suffer later.  one does good deeds in order to attain unity with the One, but any deed which benefits a soul interferes with karma and is thus evil.
         Second, all actions are merely part of the world of illusion.  The only 'real' reality is beyond differentiation, beyond good and evil.  Everything is good (which is identical to saying 'nothing is good,' or 'everything is evil.')  The thief is the saint is the thief . . .


    New Age


    The New Age began with an influx of Eastern Mysticism to Western Culture.  But over the past century a particularly Western spin on the concepts of Eastern Pantheistic Monism has spawned a view that bears less and less resemblance to the seeds from which it grew.


    Ultimate Reality - Three distinct attitudes are taken to the metaphysical question of the nature of reality under the general framework of the New Age: 1) the occult version, in which the beings and things perceived in states of altered consciousness exist apart from the self that is conscious, 2) the psychedelic version, in which these things and beings are projections of the conscious self, and 3) the conceptual relativist version, in which the cosmic consciousness is the conscious activity of a mind using one of many non-ordinary models for reality, none of which is any "truer" than any other.


    The Nature of Man - Whatever the nature of being (idea or matter, energy or particle), the self is the kingpin, the prime reality.  As human beings grow in their awareness of this fact, the human race is on the verge of a radical change in human nature.  We are on the cusp of a New Age.


    The Nature of the World - The cosmos while unified in the self is manifested in two more dimensions: the visible universe, accessible through ordinary consciousness, and the invisible universe (or Mind at Large), accessible through altered states of consciousness.


    Knowledge - The core experience of the New Age is cosmic consciousness, in which ordinary categories of space, time and morality disappear.


    Death - Physical Death is not the end of the self, under the experience of cosmic consciousness, fear of death is removed.


    Ethics - New Age proponents have not articulated a coherent approach to ethics.  To be sure, many assert that the survival of the human race is a prime value, and they insist that unless humanity evolves, unless people become radically transformed, humanity will disappear.  But, just as time and space disappear into illusion and reality, so do moral distinctions.  The reason ethical questions receive so little attention is clear from the proposition regarding the Nature of Man.  If self is king, why worry about ethics?  The king can do no wrong.


    Postmodernism - The Vanished Horizon


    Ultimate Reality - The first question postmodernism addresses is not what there is or how we know what is there, but how language functions to construct meaning itself.  a. The truth about reality itself is forever hidden from us.  All we can do is tell stories.  Truth is whatever we can get our colleagues or community to agree to.  Worldviews as described above are "metanarratives" and the claim that they say something "true" across times and cultures is arrogant illusion.  According to postmodernists, nothing we think can be checked against reality as such.  There is no way to step outside to compare our understanding with reality per se.  We must not abandon our ordinary perception that a bus is coming down the street and we'd better get out of the way.  Our language about there being a 'bus' that is 'coming down' a 'street' is useful.  It has survival value!  But apart from our linguistic systems we can know nothing.  All language is human construct.  We can't determine the "truthfulness" of the language only the "usefulness."   The world does not speak, only we do. b. All narratives mask a play for power.  Any one narrative used as a metanarrative is oppressive.


    The Nature of Man - Human beings make themselves who they are by the languages they construct about themselves.


    Ethics - Ethics, like knowledge, is a linguistic construct.  Social good is whatever society takes it to be.


    Knowledge - The cutting edge of culture and epistemology  is literary theory.


    History - The postmodern historian denies any reality to the past apart from what the historian chooses to make of it.  The past is neither objective nor fixed.


    Science - Most scientists are critical realists whether they are Naturalists or Christian Theists.  They believe there is a world external to themselves  and that the findings of science describe what the world is like more or less accurately.  Postmodernists are anti-realists in that they deny that there is any known or knowable connection between what we think and say with what is actually there.  Scientific truth is the language we use to get us what we want.  Again it must be emphasized that postmodernists affirm that the physical world exists.  They deny the status and nature of scientific claims to knowledge in light of the impossibility of directly accessing reality with language.  Because language is imprecise we must never forget that everything we SAY is imprecise.


    As you can see, postmodernism is not so much a full blown worldview as it is an attempt to correct what are seen as excessives and flaws in previous worldview systems - most notably Naturalism for it's claims regarding science and Theism for the language with which it communicates regarding God.  It makes no attempt to argue for a specific understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality or the Nature of Man so much as it argues for the degree to which we are able to assert knowledge of these phenomena.  The most important reason to understand Postmodern thought then is in order to assess it's impact in bringing modification to other worldviews.

  • I apologize for updating my time stamp to those of you who get this in email and have already read me today.  PLEASE - go to offer a word of encouragement to a little Xanga sister who is feeling all alone as a freshman far from home.   - Thanks


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Worldviews -


    Have you ever though much about which worldview you hold?  A worldview is a system of thinking about the world that primarily answers the questions:


    1. What is the nature of Ultimate Reality?
    2. What is the nature of external reality?
    3. What is a human being?
    4. What happens to a person at death?
    5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
    6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
    7. What is the meaning of human history?


    I find that most people hold one of four basic worldviews.  For ease of identification these could be called Christian Theism, Naturalism, Eastern Pantheistic Monism, or Postmodernism.  Okay, I almost choked putting the ism on the end of postmodern.  But I made my fingers type it anyway.  Holding the view of Christian Theism doesn't mean that you are a Christian nor does it mean that all Christians have this view of the world.  Postmodern thought is included in the list even though it's basic premise is that there are no right answers to any of the seven questions I listed, it's more of the anti-worldview.  Some other views and philosophies fall into these categories  such as Romanticism, Existentialism, Nihilism, or Egoism for example which are radically different from each other but are all derived from the premises of Naturalism.  Have you thought about how you would answer those questions, what's your worldview?  Have you thought through to the logical end of holding that view?  Tomorrow, I'll write about the specific way that each of the four major worldviews answer those questions - or in the case of postmodernism - why it doesn't answer any of them.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~


    So how do you do it?


    I have a "system" - each day I read the sites of the people who commented on me from the day before, then I write my blog, then I go to view SIR and read the most recent 40 or so posts.  I don't comment on everyone I read though.  I just looked back over the past week and see that I average leaving about 30 comments a day.  In this way I usually hit almost everyone on my SIR list in a given week, and I manage to get the people who are subscribed and commenting on me.  (I also learned a long time ago that just because someone subscribes to me, doesn't mean that they will involved themselves with my site, so I don't automatically sub to my subs.)

  • With Apologies to Dr. Westerman . . .


    How Do I Know Thee?  Let me count the ways.
    I know thee to the depth and breadth and height
    My eye can reach through the monitor at my side
    For the reasons of Entertainment and ideal Grace
    I know thee at the level of everyday's
    Most quiet blog, by flourescent or halogen light.
    I know thee freely, as I could read another site;
    I know thee purely, as I cannot touch you to Abase.
    I know thee with the passion put to use
    In my old daydreams, and my evil genius ways
    As revealed in the online quiz - moniet did choose
    To test me for my perfectly villianous face.
    I know thee with comment, eprop, of all my links to use,
    I shall but know thee better beyond cyberspace.


    Isn't it odd that we can read the words and see the designs posted on a Xanga site and think that we really KNOW the person on the other side of the monitor?  The postmodern criticism of modern naturalism is that we fail to distinguish between the word and the thing.  To say "today is hot" - is really to mean "this days seems hot to me."  We say "is hot" as though we have expressed something true, yet we know that not every person experiences temperature the same way.  My cousin (who lives in Alaska) might say "this day is hot" when I'm wearing a coat and heavy sweatshirt.  It's not hot to me.  Does that mean he's wrong to say it?  Or am I wrong to disagree?  Right and wrong only apply if we somehow think that the sentence "today is hot" means something absolute.


    I know that a lot of us have had a great deal of fun at the expense of postmodern thought, and I'm not writing here to defend the postmodern worldview.  But at the same time that I reject the level of the absurd that they seem to wallow in, I must admit that they have a point when they critique our ability to speak meaningfully about what we know.  In some ways, the person Quiltnmomi that you experience is just as real as the person Terri Verrette experienced by my family.  But the two are not synonymous.  Terri Verrette is three dimensional (and hoping to make it though life without gaining enough weight to qualify as the first fourth dimensional person in history).  Quiltnmomi is almost ephemeral in her lightness and transparency.  Oh, she's real, make no mistake.  Quiltnmomi has her own desires, needs, preferences and for the most part - these correspond one to one with the desires, needs and preferences of Terri.  But there is more to Terri than Quiltnmomi.  If Quiltnmomi is the Word - Terri is the thing.


    Does that make the experience of Quiltnmomi less valid?  Less true?  Only if you are reading Quiltnmomi in order to know Terri.


    (Dr. Westerman first introduced me to linguistic and semantic criticism some 20 years ago.  At the time I thought he was an odd duck, but looking back, I wish I had been able to see that he was more than what he appeared - I wish I'd known him better.)


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Thank you all for the rain wishes.  It rained heavily here for a short while, so most of it ran off, but I didn't have to water my flowers last night.  Instead, I was able to curl up in a chair with a book, a cup of tea, lit candles, a classical CD - and wonder how it is that we ever know anything, and what if anything we really can know. 


  •                When I have money
                      I buy books
                  When I have extra
                     I buy food and clothes.


    This picture and quote hang on the wall to the left of my
    reading chair.  Tim got the scanner working so I'm testing
    it by sharing one of my favorite things with you.


    There is a big storm moving in that will hopefully drop a LOT
    of rain on our parched little hill.  So I'm going to unplug the
    computer to protect it from lightning.

    I'll be back after the storm to check in on my friends and
    post something more ~~~~~~~~~ substantial.

  • Many Thanks -


    Fugitive redesigned my graphics - didn't she do a beautiful job?  It occurs to me that the best part of having my own personal designer is that I can brag on the look of my site without anyone thinking that I'm conceited. 


    What Kind of Nut


    Homeschool is fun.  I love teaching my children.  We have great school toys and good books.  I'm following the "Classical" method of education - also known in some circles as the Trivium.  My school program is divided into three segments.  First is Grammar.  In this stage we cover all the basics, readin', ritin', rithmetic, and keeping Mom supplied with chocolate.  (That last part by the way comes under the heading of proper socialization.)


    The next stage is logic, and last we do rhetoric.  I started preparing to homeschool my kids when I was pregnant with Michael almost nine years ago.  I read everything I could get my hands on regarding educational method and philosophy.  I studied ways to teach kids to read, and applied myself to knowing how different methodological approaches would work with kids of different learning styles. 


    I don't know anyone homeschooling today (including myself) who wasn't at one time terrified that her child would be the one who didn't learn to read.  We all have the odd notion that reading is the hard part, that once they learn to read we can assign them pages x-z in book a then quiz them on what they read.  In fact, the grammar stage is the easiest. 


    When we introduce logic, we start seriously studying science and history.  Oh, they are getting an introduction to those topics now.  Michael is learning about the ecocycle with producers, consumers and decomposers.  And Tucker is learning that the same rule that applied ten minutes ago still applies now. 


    I've begun to scope out materials for the next section of the schooling experience.  Michael is still at least three years away from the maturity that will allow him to learn and apply logic in his studies.  (Tucker may be a lifetime away from this stage.)  But I've discovered that the difficulty facing me is that in science and history, unlike math, you aren't just introducing them to concepts like 1+1=2.  Evey book on history and science is written from a particular worldview.  My mind is spinning now with the implications of each view and how to lead my kids through that minefield in a way that helps them to not just memorize dates and people, but helps them to understand how each action lead to the next in the chain of events that has brought us to this place. 


    Frankly, I'm tempted to start writing my own books.  Many of the books published for homeschool families preach "Christian" dogma along with the lessons.  On the other hand, I've been equally offended by more than one secular text that preaches overt atheism and scientism.  In short both sides are embarrassingly anti-intellectual.  Instead of teaching kids to question and evaluate, they are told these are the facts and anyone who asks questions about them is of an inferior moral stature. 


    Books of history have been written to advance the particular worldview endorsed by the author.  Instead of teaching that people through time have always been a mixture of good and evil, right and wrong, selfish and altruistic - textbooks magnify the men and women who best represent the ideals of the author as larger than life heroes.


    Books of science are little better.  In spite of the fact that less than 10% of human knowledge can be said to be derived from "scientific process," science is held out as the sole source of "objective" knowledge.  If you can't "prove" it through experiment, then it either isn't true, or isn't relevant.  This system has produced some considerable narrowmindedness in my own generation.  I don't see it getting any better down the road without some radical rethinking on the nature of knowledge acquisition and the value placed on knowledge gained through the humanities and personal experience. 


    In the classical voice of philosophers, no amount of science will ever "prove" what it feels like to be a bat.  The thoughts and motives of historical figures cannot be weighed in a balance or boiled down over a bunsen burner.  The ideas regarding the better or best choice in politics cannot be evaluated on the basis of past experiment, they must be weighed with the wisdom garnered from the experiences of men and women of the past but they will still be applied in our own time. 


    Science focuses on the past.  The completed experiment, the tabulated data, or the known quantity.  It is reasonable to say that the best predictor of future experience is past experience, except that day to day to day our world changes.  From Heraclitus who said, "We never step in the same river twice,"  to Santayana who gave us, "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it," philosphers have a long history of pointing out the need for balance between the limited  knowledge of the past and boundless hope for the future.  History and science must be balanced if we are to teach our children as opposed to indoctrinating them.


    Education prepares the next generation to walk that fine line, to rise up and take the reins of their own time even as we fade and the sun sets on our own.  So I'm not willing to teach my kids in any way shape form or fashion that discourages them from the asking of questions.  I like the way that Yeats put it, "Education is not the filling of a bucket, it's the lighting of a fire."  I hope to light a couple of candles here that will burn into the future instead of pouring water on their spark of curiosity.  That's heavy stuff, man.


    . . .  I'm going to go back to read in my Big Blue Chair. 

  • How to Drive on Ice


    When people learn that I homeschool my kids, they tend to have certain assumptions about what that means.  They assume for instance that I'm a religious nut.  They assume that my kids are socially warped.  And they assume that instead of "real" biology, I teach my kids a radical brand of Young Earth Creationism that denies many of the scientific discoveries of the past 200 years.  Most people are polite (it's safest to be polite around religious nuts, you never know WHAT they might do ). 


    I probably am a nut (whether of the religious or some more exotic variety is still a matter of some consideration), and I'd be the last person to hold up my children as positive examples of social virtue.  So I'll take the safer route and talk about some of what I hope to teach my children in regard to faith and science.


    Sometime back I posted about the "problem of faith."  I have no faith in faith itself.  Without a proper object for your faith, far from exercising a virtue, you are engaged in a mind-destroying act.  Regardless of how much faith you have that the frozen lake is safe to drive on, if the ice isn't thick enough, no amount of faith will support your truck.


    This example is intuitive knowledge to most Americans.  But not those from Minnesota.  There's a very good reason that people from Minnesota don't get that simple concept.  Most of the time, during certain months of the year, (August - June) the ice on any lake or pond will support the weight of a vehicle.  Even after all the years I lived there, it still strikes me as odd and somehow eccentric that they must erect little traffic signs for those people who drive across the lake instead of around it.  Even though they have good reason based on past experience to assume that the ice will support them, it's a fairly regular news item that so and so was lost when his truck fell through.  Minnesotan's are so used to their notion of driving on ice, that they don't stop to question the object of their faith, the ice itself.


    I find that most people have never looked beyond what they think they remember from their high school or undergraduate biology text.  They feel greatly superior in intellect to those poor deluded fundamentalists who've closed their mind the great achievements of scientific understanding.  They drive daily across that lake without ever stopping to test whether the theory in which they've placed their faith is indeed strong enough to support them.


    Steven Weinberg, physicist, says of Intelligent Design that "everything I said would be refuted if a flaming sword were to strike me down at the podium."  I wonder if Mr. Weinberg would recognize what a flaming sword looks like in the field of scientific inquiry.  He made his remark before a sympathetic audience who were in laughing agreement with his assumption, only a miraculous act could bring the laws of science into question.  Even then the laws are not in fact questioned, they are regarded as the unfortunate victims of a capricious deity.


    Does it strike anyone else that this is a very odd position to be held in the same century in which Einstein overturned Newton,  When the Wright brothers flew, and Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?  Weinberg made his comments in contempt of the concept of Intelligent Design.  In summary of Weinberg's scathing essay (published in two anthologies Best American Essay's 2000 and Best American Science Writing of 2000), he says that at issue is whether or not it is a matter of scientific study to link the design of the universe with a specific theology of monotheism and it's incumbent doctrines.  This is known in logical circles as a "strawman."  Instead of addressing the actual science of Intelligent Design, Weinberg caricatures this branch of study as fundamentally flawed.  He demands that scientists involved in this field endeavor to prove all manner of abstract doctrines regarding God to be "scientifically" falsifiable.  Well, to be crass, this would be no different that if I said to Mr. Wienberg (and by the way he is a brilliant man, half of the partnership that won the Nobel prize for Physics in 1979) that unless he were able to prove that physics could predict the place and time that a mountaingoat would next give birth to an all white kid, that his pursuit of the "Theory of Everything" is laughable. 


    The most interesting thing to me is not that Mr. Weinberg should hold such an illogical point of view, but that two different organizations should consider his essay to be among the best of that year.  I'm certain that his essay wasn't chosen because his grammar and spelling were pristine or that it was submitted on the highest grade of archival quality linen paper.  No, the publishers of these anthologies apparently think that Mr. Weinberg's view has merit.


    The study of Intelligent Design has implications for many areas of technology.  I'm excited about research into "artificial intelligence."  I'm intrigued by the possibility that someday a truly "intelligent" machine could be designed and constructed in a laboratory.  But, it seems unlikely to me that we could ever create an intelligent design if we don't know what an intelligent design would look like.


    Would it seem reasonable to Mr Weinberg's supporters to insist that unless the "artificial intelligence" machine were able to suspend the laws of nature that it would have failed to meet the scope and specification of "intelligence."  Maybe one day soon and intelligent design will think about Mr. Weinberg and chuckle to itself.  It might sit down and write him a courteous letter.  I wonder if Mr. Weinberg upon receipt of the epistle would recognize it as a flaming sword.

  • The Blank Box -


    I'm sitting here looking at the blank box of my x-tools.  It's just a box.  It's white pixels surrounded by gray pixels with a bit of the Quiltnmomi graphic eeking in around the right edge. There is NOTHING scary about a blank box.  Except that it's blank.


    I can't grab a photo out of my digital camera and attach a cute anectdote about the latest incident involving my ever helpful son.  Not because he passed up the opportunity to cut a big chunk of fuzz out of the poodle's tail . . . but because my camera is refusing to play nicely with my computer these days.  So instead of relying on the cheap and easy funny-kid-story - I'm sitting here with the realization that I'm going to actually have to write something.


    I started my Xanga site because I like to write.  I don't just like it, I do it whether I mean to or not.  I write paragraphs instead of grocery lists.  I write in my scrapbooks.  I write letters to my husband when he's in the same ROOM with me.  I send cards to my sister even when though I talk to her almost daily on the phone.  I write.


    I write because I can't organize my thoughts any other way.  I have to put them down and look at them.  I have to rework that sentence until it says just what I want it to mean.  I write on Xanga because you guys talk to me about my ideas.  Sometimes you tell me you think I'm funny, clever, spiritual or wise.  Occasionally, (when you are in a particularly bad mood) you tell me that I'm wrong, smart-alecky, or pigheaded.  I write here because I love that instant feedback.


    Lately, I've gotten lazy.  I've been slowly coming back to Xanga after almost two months of just checking in every now and then between vacation and trips to see family.  In addition to the family photo thing, I've been doing book reviews.  But, it's been a long time since I expressed anything like a thought of my own.  I haven't risked being wrong, smart-alecky or pig-headed. 


    So although there is a chance that it will give Fugitive a headache.  I think that the only way to defeat this battle I'm having with the blank box is to write.  Write paragraphs.  Comminucate ideas.  Risk offending someone.  Because summer is almost over.  It's time for the brisk Fall breeze to blow through and wake up the sleeping neurons.  It's time to come out from behind the "What I did on Summer vacation" essay.  It's time to fill the blank box.


  • Well, Tim wiggled and jiggled, he hooked up the camera with every cord that would fit the connections, he ran it through the video equipment, then he did a "Please" dance and was able to extract the photo of the pond bubbles.  When he tried to show me how he did it, he was never able to extract any of the other photos still living in that silver box.  We know they are in there.  We can see them through the window.  But, they won't come out and play.


    Tim has this creativity thing that allows him to do what he has to do - once.  Then he can never figure out again how he did it.  Last January he managed to pull a track of music from a cassette tape and burn it onto a CD.  Since then a friend asked for the steps involved in the process and Tim has yet to be able to reproduce whatever he did to get it right the first time.  He's still working on that one though.


    Yesterday was a beautiful day in Indiana.  Tim smoked a turkey, we had all the trimmings for barbeque (baked beans, grilled corn on the cob - I got red corn from a local farmer and that was fun on top of good eatin' - salad, fresh baked bread, and watermelon.)  Yum, yum. 


    Then just about sunset, heavy clouds rolled in and we had rain.  It wasn't a heavy rain, and it didn't last as long as I would have hoped, but this morning hte grass is still damp and we have cool breezes blowing.  Blessing on top of blessing.


    Today, it's back to the schoolroom for Momi and the boys.  So I'll be checking in tonight and doling out eprops to all you good Xanganites.  In the meantime, I'll be thinking of you guys and keeping a VERY close eye on Tucker.

  • Hey Guys!  Remember last week when I was saying that I wanted a dragon - any dragon - I didn't care what color?  Well Cyberwitch posted a link to a quiz that reveals the color dragon that would choose you.



    Take the What Color Dragon Should You Ride? Quiz

  • Momi - Momi - I Gave the Fish a Bath!


    It was a long day of shopping, weeding, and mowing the dust in Indiana.  I had just sat down in my chair with a cold diet coke.  Here came Tucker.  "Momi, guess what?  I gave the fish a bath."


    I was planning to include a photo, but for some reason my camera isn't talking to my computer again this morning.  So picture if you will - the pond - covered with bubbles - and where the little stream of water splashes into the surface they are mounded to a height of 2.5 feet.


    I bailed out the bubbles and ran the hose to overflow the pond in hopes of at least diluting the solution, but this morning the bubbles are higher than ever.  Oh, it was my bubble bath he used - the cucumber melon scented bubbles that I save for my Friday night indulgence.  Only this week, I had to make due with Plumeria because the fish got the good stuff.  Not that the fish appreciated it.


    Does anyone have any ideas for getting the pond back to a non-poisonous level?