I have realized that I close almost all my eHarmony matches based on the individual’s interest in books. Hmm.

I skip to that part of the profile. If “books? I can’t remember the last time I read a book…” then close match. Very simple.

I am clearly prejudiced.

—

Word of the Day: fete
a festive celebration or entertainment

I’m starting The Agony and the Ecstasy. A biography of Michelangelo, it looks pretty impressive. Why? Besides the subject matter itself, it is not “biography” so to speak. The book describes itself as “biographical novel.” Hmmm. This is my first one in this new uncharted genre. So far (first page has been read) this is the way biographies should be written: as if novels. It is delicious.

So I saw Star Trek tonight. And it is a movie worth seeing. Not thoroughly thought provoking, but thought provoking enough, fast, but not lacking a worthwhile plot line, and funny. Serious movies get 10,000 points from me if they’re funny, and this movie has its scenes. It should be noted I’m not a trekkie, and I thought this movie was excellent. It also had that little guy from Shawn of the Dead. He’s great.

It was Spock who I found most compelling. He’s my new hero.

I don’t really have any great analysis to offer. I usually miss too much of a movie (various details, often important) the first time around.

But, there’s my short recommendation. Spock rocks!

I think tennis is gorgeous no matter what. But just in case you don’t, here’s a picture I took in Indian Well, CA.

This pro level tournament wrapped up on Sunday with another Rafa Nadal win. For reference, this is a 1000 level tournament which means, if you’ve heard of Wimbledon, well, Indian Wells is one tier beneath that.

But forget the tiers and the points and the players (momentarily)! It seems, with beauty like this, all tournaments should be held in CA. And someone should volunteer to relocate me there.

Why do writers write? Because it isn’t there.
- Thomas Berger

I have been informed that if you drink 2 cups of green tea a day, you won’t get sick. So I’m going to try this. And will report back in 2 years.

Word of the Day: obfuscate – to bewilder with extraneous information.
The problem with this word is that it’s difficult to pronounce… which makes it like what it is.

Speaking of bewilder, could that word be related to “wilderness”?

And why no posts till now?! Well, my previous posts did not meet “the standard” (an ever-fluctuating thing) so they remain, lonely and unobserved, on my hard drive.

I am reading “Einstein, His Life and Universe” by Walter Isaacson and for the first time in my life have an extremely small understanding of quantum physics and the theory or relativity. And of Einstein, who is one heck of a personality. Literary. Poetic. Deeply philosophical. Entertaining to the last drop. I’m really shocked with the man himself. Are there are other scientests out there like this? ‘Cause I want to meet them. All of them.

More to come… when the book’s actually finished.

————-

I have pulled all the muscles in my lower (playing tennis). Now, life is sans-tennis and several shades less intereting. For the record, back muscles are the last muscles you should ever pull because you use them for everything. I didn’t know this. I am now pathetic. There is no bounce in my gait. That hurts. Blowing my nose hurts (did you know there’s a muscle in your lower back tied to your nose? there is!). I don’t “get” out of bed – I roll out of bed, carefully, on my side, then sit up, then stand. Like your Granmda. I actually limp around the office. Why? Sitting for a long time gets those muscles mad all over again… and I am pathetic once again.

————-

I should state that there have been no posts because my new house lacks an Internet connection. But what a sad time not to post! An election is coming. I could have pontificated on matters I know even less than previous the ones! This will be fixed. Soon. And I will return to the usual blather.

—————

Warning: Blather starting a bit early.

So here’s the latest thought. Are you truly asking a question if you will only take one answer? Perhaps two? Let’s make this more specific: are you really asking a question if you already know the answer? Obviously no. But this causes a problem. If you don’t already know what the answer is, how are you ever going to find it? And if you do already know the answer, then you’re not really asking a question. A fair question, it seems, can never be asked, or answered.

I suppose this is my own way of stating the “problem of problems”.

A corollary – and this is really where I’ve been going with this – how can I be dedicated and yet question? Isn’t the definition of questioning that which challenges? If I am challenging – and I mean it – then I’m clearly not dedicated. I have no answer. I do think you can ask too many questions and I’ve certainly passed that limit several times before.

—————–

Tying the noose around my neck – one last prediction to sink my credibility: I predict, for fun, solely because I can, that Obama will the presidency by a surprisingly small margin.

We shall see.

The great Fed has made his return. And all the world is right. In honor of that, I have to post this clip I ran into on YouTube. Even if you’re not a tennis or Roger Federer fanatic – let’s say you’re just into creative commercials or entertainment in general – this clip’s for you. It’s great fun. Enjoy!

I love tennis. It is the only sport in which “thank you” means “shut up”. And – not surprisingly – I have watched too much of the U.S. Open.

————

So, Sarah Palin. Her choice was a stroke of brilliance. Now both parties have novelty: Obama is black and Palin is female. And she’s substanially more interesting than McCain. Which is probably not too hard to do.

————

Here’s a question I’ve been kicking around: assuming macro evolution to be true, why should I think evolution is over? The significance of the question should be obvious: if evolution is not over, then I – and, more importantly, my thinking ability – is still evolving. What if I evolve to the point where I realize evolution isn’t true?! So, that’s a nonseical question but I think it makes my point. If my reasoning ability has evolved, and if evolution isn’t actually finished, then I have no grounds for thinking that evolution, or – better yet – anything, is true. I’m sure someone, somewhere has addressed why we can 1) believe the process has ended so that 2) we can believe our own thoughts. But, I’ve never heard this issue addressed and am curious to hear that reason. (For the record, the same difficulty applies to those on the opposite side of the fence – it just has an entirely different twist.)

————-

Random TidBit (to complete my extremely random post above): If you ever need a definition of a term, Google has a nice service. I just looked up the word “menagerie” to make sure it’s what I wanted. In their search field, type define: menagerie AND… tada – you get a whole host of responses, which is really what you want to begin with. That’s better than a dictionary, because here we have greater variety and usage, wider connotation, and – perhaps the best – current results.

What do you do when your biggest questions have been answered? Well, dance a jig or something. Since you can’t see my jig I’m currently dancing, I’m just going to post about the book that caused the jig. (Actually, the only time I “jig” is on the tennis court and that’s really more of a victory dance… which isn’t really condoned in tennis… very sad, as it’s the best part of my game.) It is Proper Confidence by Leslie Newbigin. The subtitle is Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Many of the questions I’ve posted on this blog I’ve viewed as, essentially, unanswerable. But he answers them! At least to my satisfaction.

So I’ll provide a rundown of the book and hopefully persuade you also to pick up this gem.

1) First it should be noted that this is a Christian book. That means he operates out of a worldview soaked in Christian assumptions and beliefs. For the non-Christian, I still think this book would be beneficial because it is primarily philosophical – and only secondarily theological – and deals with problems that affect the church only because first they affected our culture at large. He is well spoken and thought provoking.

2) The first point of the book: Christian epistemology requires a scrapping of classical Greek epistemology. This has a thousand implications – many of which are disturbing, all of which are interesting – but I’ll leave those inside the book.

3) His next topic is what happens when that scrapping does not occur and instead classical Greek epistemology holds sway, as it does today. As you might imagine, Descartes gets a lot of air time.

4) Nihilism is next.

5) He discusses different kinds of knowledge: intellectual versus personal, in other words, knowing a fact versus knowing a person, and the inherent risks of knowing a person.

6) Fascinatingly, he attacks the dichotomy between objective and subjective knowledge. He bases his thoughts off a 20th century Russian scientist turned philosopher. It is decently convincing and is core to the argument of his whole book. (I’ve never heard anyone challenge this dichotomy. Am I out in left field? Perhaps it is more common than I realize?)

7) But primarily he dismantles some of the core principles of modernity. In its place, he talks of personal knowledge, how a knower must “commit” to what he knows, and the inherent personal risk always involved.

Unfortunately, my above post is not particlarly well written and, conceptually, does this book little justice. Please keep that in mind. I view this post is as a bit of a conclusion to the many conversations occuring previously on this blog: interesting thoughts, but mostly unanswered questions. As he makes his points far better than I would, I am just pointing to this book. At only 100ish pages, it is an easy read! I feel like I could stop blogging now – because he actually answered the questions I thought couldn’t be answered.

And for the record, I’m still jigging.