Weird

So I have noticed a general trend. In myself. I previously wrote I never cry in movies. Rarely cry in general.

Except then I realized, its actually just an extremely rare movie that makes me cry and they're always dealing with NON-humans. haha, that's right, for example:
observe the trend:

The Land Before Time (when Little-foot's mother dies)
Dumbo (when his Mom's chained up)
Lion King (when Mufasa dies)
Flipper (when Elijah Wood forces Flipper to swim back to the ocean, but he doesn't wanna leave)
A. I.Artificial Intelligence (about the robot kid, who wants to stay in Heaven with his human mom)
King Kong
March of the Penguins

So all of these movies involve either a
animal-animal interaction, robot-human interaction or a animal-human interaction.

Strange.

Old King Kong vs. New King Kong: Interesting Cultural Trends and Observations

Well this should get us all thinking really hard about what reeeeeaaally matters here, lol. So I noticed a change in how men approach relationships from the old 1930s movie King Kong and the new version of the story.
Old movie-
Jack Driscoll, first mate: "Say Ann, I guess I love you..."
Kisses her.
New movie-
"I'm writing a play for you"
"Really. Why is that?"
"Isin't it obvious?"
Nothing happens.



LOL!

"The curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden." - ILN 1-3-20






"If a man called Christmas Day a mere hypocritical excuse for drunkeness and gluttony, that would be false, but it would have a fact hidden in it somewhere. But when Bernard Shaw says that Christmas Day is only a conspiracy kept up by Poulterers and wine merchants from strictly business motives, then he says something which is not so much false as startling and arrestingly foolish. He might as well say that the two sexes were invented by jewellers who wanted to sell wedding rings." - George Bernard Shaw, Ch. 6






"Any one thinking of the Holy Child as born in December would mean by it exactly what we mean by it; that Christ is not merely a summer sun of the prosperous but a winter fire for the unfortunate." - The New Jerusalem, Ch. 5





"The more we are proud that the Bethlehem story is plain enough to be understood by the shepherds, and almost by the sheep, the more do we let ourselves go, in dark and gorgeous imaginative frescoes or pageants about the mystery and majesty of the Three Magian Kings." - Christendom in Dublin, Ch.3




"The great majority of people will go on observing forms that cannot be explained; they will keep Christmas Day with Christmas gifts and Christmas benedictions; they will continue to do it; and some day suddenly wake up and discover why." - "On Christmas," Generally Speaking
Morality and Truth





"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." - ILN, 10/23/09

The Logic Box

"I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification."


-Chesterton

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Not that he's saying that atheists are neccesarily sad people, but that their state is reductionary, i.e. reality is confined to the box of reason. Reality, it seems for one, is constrained to logic. And although I believe A is A, that reality is what is, I don't believe we are always capable of arriving at an imminent, dynamic comprehension of reality by the use of reason alone. If a God such as the Church or Christianity hold to exist did exist qua infinite being, there is simply no way that he, as such would "fit" into a logical, rational definition, as the defintion is essentialy, qua definition, bound up in finitude. Reason is capable of simply "pointing to" reality. It could never encapsulate God accurately if he were to exist as "infinite." The word infinite in itself is right at this moment merely "pointing to" a shadow of comprehension of what the word is supposed to mean. And that is even the word/divine aspect as yet undefined!

God cannot be constrained to his definition, only "pointed to" by it.

Logic is a useful science for people who find it important to define and classify and universalize and generalize reality. I don't really see the point of compartmentalizing the cosmos, or compartmentalizing God. He is one. Division and disunity and dischord result from a full lacking of a unified one, so why do we atempt to seperate and divide him in mental categorical definitions?

Chapter 1: None With Tears

All silence. And then they come, the gentle waves that touch me without touching, the soft rustling breath of the tall-still-men-with-rough-skin. Sometimes I hug these men to see if my warmth will bring them more alive, but their rigid skin never rises like my chest does. They have no arms like me.
They speak to me these times. It happens when their gentle breath flows over my body and I hear their soft voices above. I call out to them so they know that I am listening. When I do, the ones-who-do-not-fall also speak. It is sad and beautiful when they join in. They do not want to be left out, so I talk back to them in their own foreign language.
Always trying, speaking, never in my own way enough. None of them have sounds like mine. None of their bodies feels like mine. None of them have tears like mine.
The still-men cry, but their tears are thick, thicker then blood. And sticky, like blood before it dries. Not quick and smooth and dripping as mine.

Asceticism: My Two Cents

The hierarchical model of asceticism was primarily based in the Greek philosophical school, in which the whole of the cosmos fit into a structured order of higher and lower. The spiritual realities, pneuma, were ranked higher then those things bound to the physical, material worlds, bound in the hyle. Thus, when those of a Greek background began taking up the new religion of Christianity for their own, they continued to hold onto their hierarchical understanding of the world, transferring this philosophy into a new theological context. This model tends to see the body and the physical in contradiction, constant opposition or obstacle to the spiritual plane that one should aspire to, in their understanding. I primarily see this as a weakness in ones taking up of a mode of asceticism.

Coming from a background of theological study which was ingrained not only in an understanding of this hierarchy, but which took this philosophical hierarchy ex cathedra, so to speak, I have seen its many detrimental effects. One tends to see the world as a “prison or cage” as this hierarchy begins to steep every aspect of ones life and thought. Ones “spiritual life” can easily become something in a sense detached from ones work, interaction and whole life. This philosophy taken over to theological contexts, in my experience, transferred an entire student body’s understanding of gender, filtered individual personalities into “a role,” and emphasized reason as higher then emotion.

I find these issues to contend. Chrsitians should gravely question whether or not the cosmos should be so strictly categorized, or in a theological context, whether Christ desires this compartmentalization of our entire being, for separation and disunity are always the result of the fall. Moreover, this hierarchy seems to be in contradiction to the message of Christ who says: “Take my yoke upon you; yes, my yoke is easy and my burden light.” In this, Christ commands us to take up his yoke, that yoke he carries being a very physical cross, one which we must embrace in heart, mind, strength and soul: in every aspect of our being. This hierarchy of the cosmos even seems to contrast with Saint Paul in his words to the Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free person, woman nor man. (imagine the cultural shock of a Greek audience)” Lastly I see it in contrast to the “baptismal equality” of John Paul II.

The incarnational model of asceticism can be seen demonstrated in the thought and lives of two thirteenths century men, Francis and Bonaventure. “The world itself was for Francis that form in which God may be known, loved and served. The sensible world, far from distracting a person fro the greater reality of abstractions, was the arena in which the activity of God could be discerned. Francis’ goal was not to free himself from the sensible world, but to practice holiness in participation with it (Miles, 115).” Perhaps a good illustration or expression of the incarnational model of asceticism is the [Benedictine] motto “Ora et labora,” which it seems links the call to pray unceasingly and yet to be living in equilibrium between body and soul, balanced, and as far as is possible, restoring the state of “Integritas.”

According to Miles’ understanding, the existential intentionality of all of humanity partakes in a particular energy, what she defines as a “desperate and unconscious demand: “the flesh” (Miles, 22).” I believe that in this century there is (perhaps a greater need then in past eras for a) new and positive asceticism, one which recognizes and properly channels the power and beauty of what “the flesh” speaks, both to and of our identity. I believe that this mysterious, magnetic force which Miles describes in the traditional semantics of Saint Paul (who introduced this terminology) is possibly a type of divine imprint, or map, ingrained in our being, in order to direct us towards the completion of our being, a concept not limited to the intellectual, dogmatic formulations of the Christian tradition, but rooted in every culture; in every heart.


The reason I suggest that a new asceticism is greatly needed in our time, is that the “desperate and unconscious demand” we observe in ourselves and humanity seems to have been heightened. We stand in the bleak ruins of the emotional and spiritual disasters of communism, ideologies spreading the love and honor death, world wars, and atomic bombs. The state of dehydration of the spirit within us, the lack of the nourishment one finds in meditation, silence, and inner quiet, creates a man more desperate and spirit-starved then in any known culture. The lacking of connection to “the source” is greater, ergo the desperation and demand is greater. The relentless demands of the flesh can only be satisfied by one-ness with the Life-source. Miles posits that the effect of the flesh’s desire being directed towards (and taking control of) the body, and the natural desires of the body, leads to an “agenda of sex, power and possession (Miles, 23).” There is evidence in observance of history and society that the flesh has generally taken control of the body in modern American culture, for these three goals are at the fiber of the media, trade and virtually every aspect of life in America today.


Any ascetic practice requires the body’s continual state of “nourishment and patterns of habit” to be reset, in order to reset the state of the soul, as they are intrinsically connected. I believe an effective way of implementing this realization of soul-blody connect in mainstream society is to bring to mind the very central focus of health already present and demonstrate as far as possible that spiritual health and physical health are intrinsically connected. Any health magazine will opint to the connection between peace of soul and bodily harmony. Statistics and medical sciences reflect this connection. For example, they reveal that multiple, random sexual partners is simply unhealthy for the body and percentage wise, points to early death and /or a wide-variety of illness. This could be seen as pointing to the soul-body link. Modern Americans already understand thoroughly that eating well and good bodily care is a good to be sought. it affects moods, feelings, performance, energy, etc. One can very easily raise this already present understanding to the next level and incorporate the spiritual with the physical.

Poll

So my sister's friend Manny wants my number? . . .

Should I give it to him? . . .

(maybe the fact that I'm asking this question gives me the answer)

To begin my first novel...

I am setting this down on the table so that I hafto follow through. At least one chapter by the end of break... approx. 1 chapter per month... okay... so let it be written, so let it be done...

a god a man

Pax et bonum, etc etc...
This is now officially my Christmas card, since I have years of Christmas cards written, stacked, sealed and strewn, which I never, ever get around to mailing.

This Incarnation-Christmas thing is (of course) baffling me of late.


so basically we're saying that God makes himself mutable, changing, unaware, weak, small, hurting, hungry and alone...
all things "impossible" for a god...

To the mind, we have an "insane" God... doing things gods aren't supposed to do... a rebel God! sounds like that irish song...who breaks the boundaries of our definitions and our thoughts... he breaks the boundaries of reality as we know it, or think it to be... the incarnation is
a breaking of reality as we think it to be...

a cave to encapsulate the infinite divine... a king in the poorest of the poor....

GOD-IN-WEAKNESS
the reality transcending the word "God" is found is something opposed to that reality

should we then conclude that God is found in contradiction?

Godmakeshimselfthatwhichhecannotbe

... it almost seems to me that God is demonstrating his God-ness in becoming "not God"... (to do the one thing no mythical god "dared.") to lose himself, to forget his divine-ness... and still be himself? by human logic, a god becoming man makes him not god... it makes him one or the other... a cloud cannot become a tree and remain a cloud... so we have here either an impossiblity or a miracle... divine logic shatters human logic...

divine logic does not rewrite reality... it IS reality

so I guess we can conclude that IF we DO look for and find GOD-IN-WEAKNESS, he must be demonstrating his god-ness to us, if we want to find him we cannot look on thrones grand texts perfected human logic... he is not there... find the place that smells the worst, the coldest place, the lonliest place, the most hated abandoned place upon this earth... and that is the place he comes
it might be a bombed out cave in the middle east somewhere... but you don't need a plane to get there...

The city of God vs. the city of man?

Okay, here is an observation of mine so take it for what its worth which is not much...

It seems that in my experience and in practically the entirity of church history there has been an assumed diachotomy between "the world" and living ones faith. This i am about to take issue with. That is compltely and utterly impossible to do. Now i know that "the world" has generally meant something more intangible, symbolic thing to be feared and avoided, for example "the mentality" of the world, the pre-eminent culture etc etc. However in ecclesiatical history this strugle to avoid the things of the world has led christians to avoid the world completely... the myriads of examples include the early christian communities, the desert fathers and mothers, the amish, religious cloisters, and on and on...

1- i ask why are we to avoid completely the things of the world... this idea seems in contradiction to what catholics believe about the world... for in a catholic world things become sacramentals, instruments of grace... people become the mode through which the person meets God himself...
2- if one avoids the world in pursuit of faith... one never really finds faith one finds fear...




i think we need to stop promulagating augustines city of god vs. city of man ideology
i see this idea permeating every community of catholics i know whether they are charismatic traditional or not...
since christ is the

GOD-MAN

we dwell then in the city of the god-man... for this is how he came... into earth into flesh into the WORLD god became ONE with the world and so we also should... christ went into the house of the tax collectors and sinners so should we... their is no city of God or city of man... both would be a city of man... for God is found withIN the city of man...

Hi-5 syndrome

i have random thoughts here so brace yourself...
:D

so holly always says she hates children and i keep trying to convince her that she doesen't hate children she just hates the way children are programmed to be

the amazing part of children is the huge part inside them that is as yet unpolluted by adults

for example...
we saw this college guy bend over to say hi to these wto little boys
the whole process was sickening to observe-

1- they look up at him smiling, waiting to be affirmed
2- he looks down at them
3- puts out his hand for them to "hi-5"
4-the kids slap his hands
5- he hugs them and goes "yeaah!" in a growly voice


so
what have the kids learned

in order to feel worth anything they have to do something, and usually something stupid
then they keep this mentality always feeling like they have to do something to be worth anything to others...

Behind the scenes

so i've been watching this back stage documentary about the nutcracker and i find it quite fascinating for example this french guy instructor said

i don't choose my dancers based on the best bodies i choose the dancers with soul... thats what dancing is about

and then one guy dancer said

what makes a dancer is when the audience looks at you and they don't see steps. all they see is the relationship between you and the other dancer. and you take them into your world...

this is what art is all about... its the same way with writing... a good writer gives you more then words... what occurs is a transferrence from the reality of finite words to get into the readers soul... to give the reader a picture of himself... as if turning a page is a glimpsein the mirror... to give them greater self-knowledge to lead them to your world... writing is about a relationship essentially and it gets down to the writer giving her soul to the reader who takes it graspingly gratefully and thinks "i'm not crazy after all" and connects the souls by the bridge of words...

Anagnorisis

is a good thing. (is it spelled right?)

Silence of the Lambs

Ok, so just how freaky is it that the first time i watch this movie I am in Steubenville Ohio and like that "Buffalo Bill" guy in the movie lives in Ohio! (And there is a scene of a bridge in Ohio that I swear I've seen around ehre somewhere) ok so i never saw this before, have i mentioned that? lol and i don't mind scary, but gory stuff scares the "living daylights" out of me. anyways jenny dave and i were watching it late saturday night and jenny's like "let's just go get a little bottle of vino, it'll take 15 minutes." so i'm like sure i'll come and we leave behind both of our cell phone, our glasses and dave (thestrong guy, lol) to run and get some wine. "15 minutes" turned into 45 as we went in circles int eh middle of nowhere Ohio... trying to find route 22 we turned down to wrong roads that were endlessly dark and led only to scary abandoned trailer homes... not only that but right before we drove away to leave dave slammed into jenny's driver side window to scare her... she screamed so loudly that both of our pulses/adrenaline was rushing for the whole next 40 minutes... so then we finally got home without finding the Speedway we were looking for and I just bummed 3 beers from Lexy upstairs... by now it was about 2 and we simply finished watching the movie... quite a calming evening... tata!

H

Ehem

" . . . everything that exists, accordingly, is good, inasmuch as it possesses some grade of reality value, but (Augustine returns to his relativity principle) not everything is equally good. [For him] the goodness of anything can be looked at from two angles: a being can "suit" or "befit," can be "good for." "

So, a being can be good in two senses:

1) as a shoe fits someone's foot
2) a being can be good in and for itself

" ... Augustine calls this latter kind of goodness "beauty." Contemplate the entire panoply of realities now, he is telling us, and you will find things that may not be good "for" you- mosquitos, say, or scorpions- but you will find nothing that is not good "for" some other being (the male for the female scorpion, for instance), and nothing that is not beautiful, good in and for itself, in some measure or other: how elegantly, for instance, the mosquito is structured! "

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Sad, Beautiful People

quiet.

watch.

the sad and beautiful people
walking slowly
with hollow eyes in unending file
streching to the horizen,

to the place they think is somewhere
and discover is nowhere
a sad circle
around the globe.

silently they cry
and continue walking.

One

one day i found out
the pope wears red Prada
shoes.

on the same day i looked at you
and disintigrated.

one moment i
turned into a magnet
and you were the positive charge.

one second
is all it takes
to be immersed
in the cloud of unknowing

What I mean is, why?

Why do we say that something is good because it exists?

Why does existence = goodness?

I don't get it...

Good?

What does it mean to be good...?

[Apparently that which exists is good... and God saw that it (everything) was good]

If something is good its supposed to follow that it be loved? ie, love follows upon knowledge of the good...Is it then loved BECAUSE it is good?

people can't be loved because they are good: then it would not be love; love can't be conditional...

unless love IS contingent upon existence...

but love can't be conditional upon existence because God's love trancends existence, ie he loves those people who do not yet exist...

Perhaps the reason love is rare is because of pervading blindness to goodness?

God did see the goodness of creation, and loved it,
but how or when do we look at another person and see them as good...???

don't we usually see the opposite-
I usually think about what I assume is wrong with the person and not what is good about them-

It seems only a rare and fleeting moment when we look at someone and see their goodness, and those people whose goodness we apprehend...

are the people we love...

so do we love them conditionally upon seeing their goodness? there's obviously a connection between love and goodness...

but then do we raelly then love at all, if we only love contingently, when we see good qua good?

if one can no longer see goodness... do we stop loving all together?

ah, so then what is love? it must be much more then vision/appretiation of good...

or,
perhaps those who love most are those who have the most vision...

So, what now?

Saturday night my grandpa had his 90th birthday... there was a huge family party for him that i missed... the other day i found out the new pope wears red prada shoes and it made me sad... cuz John Paul wore the same faded loafers all the time apparently... and people say oh john paul was just a "good crowd worker" and he was an actor, but its not all there was... when i saw pope benedict xvi on world youth day he was so very stoic and his words carried a deeper theological weight but his bearing seemed cold... whereas with john paul, when i saw him in toronto... his whole being did not say "look at me workin the crowd" it was brokeness and pain and honesty: integritas...his words were simple yet penetrating... and many people i know were of the opinion that john paul was more into people looking at him then at christ... i don't see this in him... i see that in seeing john paul one could not help but see christ... as they were so one...so is a lack of inspiration or feeling or passion always a bad thing? is it a sign that soemthing is wrong with how i'm living or is it just the way life is... becuase as horribly heretical and twisted and messed up as christendom was, i was always passionate there... well by sophmore year it started to flicker out which is why i though i had to leave and i thought i'd findit again here but i don't know part of me feels like this is just part of the aging/growing up process, not that you get jaded but you start to realize that things let you down that people let you down and then you try not to get your hopes up because it takes so much energy once you realize things wweren't what you thought they'd be... was my "Christendom fire" a fire of youthful enthusiasm? was it spiritual fire, a greater indwelling of God? was i just naive? maybe it was a combination of all three... so where do i go from here... like i told holl and john at christendom i used to spend hours upon hours praying in the chapel... it was a combination of great love and great fear that kept me there... it was heaven and hell infused in my heart and battling each moment... it was God imminent in every particle... and i do miss that desperation- that fight that struggle second by second where every breath counts for something... for love or for death... and not for gray... so how do I live like that as i break into the world? i guess this has always been the question hasen't it...

veni veni emmanuel...