Maxims

If there were maxims that governed philosophical exploration, I've always thought they would be something like:

1. Pursue knowledge first among all things.
2. Critically analyze all knowledge you encounter no matter what its source, and refuse to adhere to flawed or specious beliefs. Allow for no exceptions.
3. Follow where your intellectual searching takes you, but do not be capricious in your beliefs. Accept something only after making a determined effort to refute it; but, if you cannot do so, accept the information regardless of how difficult and surprising it may be.

This came up when Irene and I were discussing the differences between the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universalists, and I realized that not only could I not differentiate between those two, but I couldn't articulate the differences between Episcopalians and other Protestant sects. So what had I be doing all those years? Rule #2 violated, I hung my head in shame.

I'm still sorting out the answer to that little puzzle, but I found an illuminating article in Time magazine discussing the true nature of another religious belief--Scientology. It's a long one, but it makes for quick reading. Some of it is absolutely not to be believed. I suppose it's common knowledge that Scientologists are wacky, but I was surprised at exactly how vindictive and avaricious the group truly is.



Enjoy.

Good Questions

Irene and I were talking about the Odyssey last night while making dinner, and Irene asked a very good question. I was kind of blathering on, and I happened to mention the most heralded events in the epic--Odysseus' encounters with the Lotus-Eaters, Cyclops, Circe, Sirens, as well as Scylla & Charibdis--are not told as they happen, but narrated by Odysseus to the Phoenicians only the night before his return to Ithaca. Which seemed interesting to me, but Irene asked (and rightfully so): So what?

Sadly, I didn't have any insightful replies on hand and, even after reflection, I can't come up with a convincing reason this structure would effect the story itself. It's true that Odysseus is a man of "twists and turns" and so throughout the epic tailors his story to his audiences--but it's difficult to believe that Homer would have Odysseus incorrectly recount this section, this section that details the harrowing nature of his journey, and so constitutes the heart of the story.

What makes it interesting to me is that prior to telling the Phoenicians of his trials and travails Odysseus is moved to tears by a famous Phoenician bard who sings of the fall of Troy. Odysseus compliments the bard profusely ... and then launches into his own story. It seems to me that by having Odysseus praise the Phoenician bard, and by having Odysseus' become a bard himself by retelling his legendary journey, Homer has reserved a special place for bards the world over. Historical context makes this easier to understand: Not only would Homer have told the Iliad and the Odyssey orally, he would have known that the only other way they would be spread is by other bards.

So one reason for this structure, among many others I'm sure, is self-propagation (with perhaps a touch of egoism). Tell them to hold the press at the New Yorker (with their indecipherable cartoons), I've got their next front page story right here.

The Economist

A few weeks ago I forwarded you an article in Foreign Affairs about corporate social responsibility--as it turns out, the Economist has picked up the thread, and has a 14-page spread in this week's edition. If you've only got time for one article, the lead story is here. Generally, the piece appears to be an attempt to temper optimism about the impact businesses can have, and should have, in facing down global problems. Whether the Economist, which is famed for its impartiality and level-headedness, is right to reign in expectations I'll leave to your consideration.

Admittedly, the Economist has never been one of my preferred publications. It's expensive, for one thing, and its focus on business issues takes a toll on readability. The analysis of social issues is commendably even-handed, and often quite insightful--but usually all too brief (few articles run for more than two pages). Even masterly written articles can only cover so much with such little ink.

Worse, I find myself skeptical of the magazine's readership. The content of the Economist is simply too specialized for general consumption, but its reputation as the magazine for the cosmopolitan and business-savvy make it an appealing subscription for the affectatious.

For what it's worth, I'm sure that among those who actually need it the Economist is simply indispensable.

And that's my gripe about the Economist. Let me know if you agree, and/or if the article's helpful.

Belated Thanks

I wanted to thank you for my Christmas presents. I've put both the Henckels knives and Emeril pots and pans to good use, and with little delay. In particular, this little guy has been invaluable:
From cutting potatoes to onions to soy meats to opening packages, I've found no other knife that is its equal. Good for everything.

I've put it to work tonight cooking some Miso Soup. I'll let you know how it turns out.

I also have an excellent recipes for Vegetarian Moussaka--but I'll save that to make the next time I come home.

Happy MLK (Jr.) Day!

I know, I know. The actual day of celebration is tomorrow. But, Irene gave the sermon at her church today and the theme (complete with jazz band!) was MLK. And it was a very good sermon.
I'd attempt to summarize, but I wouldn't do it justice.

I was also happy to hear that you managed to rent out the Asheville place...though it is a bit unfortunate that it happened when you were intending to stay there! Was it the fault of the realty? I think you mentioned over the phone that you had to move places several times. Sounds taxing. Hopefully you still enjoyed the weekend.

Official GRE Scores

I received my finalized, official GRE scores in the mail yesterday. As I mentioned before, my verbal was significantly higher than my math. What I hadn't realized was that, apparently, the opposite is true for most test takers so in terms of how I did percentage-wise the difference is even more exaggerated.

Effectively, it's two A's (verbal and essay) and a F (math).

Aren't either of you good at math? How did I end up so bad at math?

Mother Amy

So why is it that Uncle's are always referred to by their connection and their name (e.g. Uncle Chris)? Why no Father Chris or Gramps Roger? Maybe I heard some Granna Linda's, but that's it. Not that I'm complaining about being remembered, or anything, but seriously.

It's always Uncle Joe, or Uncle Scott, or Uncle Something-or-Another. What is it about Uncle's that requires an extra level of categorization?

Pictures of the New Place

Alright, alright. The post below was a bit heavy. How about this? I finally got around to taking and posting a few pictures of my new place in Boston (Somerville, actually). Take a look.


Why don't you come up and see (it) sometime?

John Lennon & Barack Obama

On Sunday Irene and I were discussing something or another and the life and work of John Lennon came up. I remembered that Lennon was shot in 1980, but the rest of the details of his death eluded me. For the record, Lennon was shot on December 8 by Mark David Chapman. For the conspiracy buffs, besides being known by all three of his names, Chapman was carrying a paperback copy of The Catcher and the Rye.

More seriously, thinking of Lennon's assassination brought to mind the cavalcade of high profile deaths that occurred in the 1960's:

John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.
Martin Luther King Jr. was shot by James Earl Ray on April 4, 1968.
Robert F. Kennedy was shot by Sirhan Sirhan on June 6, 1968.

Not to mention lesser known political figures:

Malcolm X was shot and killed by a number of members of the Nation of Islam on February 21, 1965.
Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, members of the Black Panther Party, were killed on December 4, 1969, apparently by FBI Officers.

I've often wondered what effect a series of killing like this has on the national consciousness. There must be a slew of books and dissertations on the subject; suffice it to say, if you couple the death of many young, loved political figures (albeit of significantly different views) with the disillusionment that followed Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War, disgust and/or apathy would be obvious possible effects.

And now, we have a young political candidate who has people more excited--especially young people--then they have been for some time, if at all. Has the nation sufficiently recovered from the psychological scars it received from the deaths above to believe in another young, promising politician? Is it simply that a new generation has come of age who doesn't suffer from the memories of turbulent 60's? Will Barack end up as another politician who initially garnered excitement and support but ultimately failed to transform that support into electoral success and so was forgotten by history?

Big questions, but this post is too long already.

Post-Holiday Rundown

Well that was a busy couple of days. After I left Maryland on Friday I went to work for six or seven hours, went home, and continued studying for the GRE. I got a brisk six hour nap, got up, and started studying for the GRE again. Then, from 1:30pm to around 5pm I faced the GRE monster. More on that below. Afterwards, Irene and I saw a movie called The Savages--which, incidentally, I highly recommend--and then called it a night. Sunday was all errands, including going back to the office to pick up all my stuff, Monday was a morning in the office and then a trip to New York for New Year's Eve, Tuesday was recovering from New Years Eve, Wednesday was a horrid back on the Fung Wah, and today is ... today.

How lucky I am to live such an eventful life. I could write a post on any of the sentences above. My guess would be that you're most interested in is the GRE.

My feel about the GRE is that I did well enough, and could have done better with more than two or three days preparation, but not well enough to tell you my actual score (which you find out immediately after the test). Suffice it to say, I did better on the verbal section than the math section, and perhaps best of all on the essay section. The test itself was surprisingly brief and I thought the way the time was apportioned was odd. The test started with essays of 45 minutes and 30 minutes and then moves on to either a 30 minute verbal section and a 38 minute math section with one experimental section thrown into the mix. And that's it. It might be less surprising if the essays weren't generally understood to be worthless. So why spend half the test on them? Why not. This is a standardized test: logical consistency is for the questions, not for the layout.

The trip back was eight hours and included a broken down bus. That's what Irene and I get for taking the Fung Wah. I'd be more bummed, but the Iowa Caucuses are turning out to be pretty interesting.