Causation Station

Remembering Aristotle's Metaphysics because it came up in a few discussions I've been having with myself. First the summary, then the questions.

1. Science seeks knowledge
2. Knowledge is of causes
3. Thus, science seeks causes

Question: Are there an infinite or finite amount of causes?

Assume: there are infinite causes
1. If there are infinite causes, then science must have knowledge about an infinite number of things.
2. To know an infinite amount requires an infinite duration to obtain.
3. An infinite duration never comes to be (never ends).
4. To know an infinite amount will never come to be.
5. Hence, science can never know an infinite amount.
6. Science cannot have knowledge. (Since knowledge is of causes)

Assume: there are finite causes
1. Finite knowledge requires finite time.
2. Finite time can be achieved.
3. Finite knowledge can be achieved.

Statement: So if causes are limitless, then we cannot have knowledge, but if causes are limited, then perhaps we can.

Statement 2: The first argument can be used in a similar turn to show that there cannot be an infinite number of causes:

1. Either there are an infinite or a finite number of causes.
2. If infinite, then things would take an infinite duration to come into being.
3. An infinite duration never occurs.
4. Things would never come to be.
5. Things are.
6. Hence, there are not an infinite number of causes.
7. Ergo, there are a finite number of causes.
8. Therefore, knowledge is possible.

1. If there are a finite number of causes, then there is a 1st cause.
2. If knowledge is of causes, then to know the 1st cause is to know it's cause.
3. Either the 1st cause is self-caused or has a separate cause.
4. To suggest it has a cause outside itself slips back into an infinite regression (never-ending problem), so it cannot be the case.
5. The 1st cause's cause is itself.
6. Therefore, knowledge of the 1st cause is knowledge of the 1st cause.

Statement:
This last conclusion is a tautology (x is x) which is obvious to some but reluctantly not to others. I recently read a Yale academic journal by a graduate student who suggested, much like Kierkagaard I believe, that to ask for knowledge of the 1st cause resulted in contradiction. If the search for possible causes was logically exhaustive then I can see that conclusion, unfortunately they forgot that the 1st cause might be self-caused, that is that it always is.

Observation:
It would appear that there are many types of causes. We are apt to say things like:
(1) The curvature of the plane is what causes it to fly so well (2) The statue is heavy because it's made out of marble. (3) I visited the Himalayas because I wanted to see some abominable snowman (4) I caused the car crash because I hit the gas instead of the brake pedal.

Analysis:
Proposition (1) shows that the shape or ordering of the plane's parts is the reason for it being so aerodynamic. The shape and/or ordering is not the matter of the plane, that is, it is not the metal or plastic, although those might be factors, the claim is that the mere shape of the thing causes something. What I'm essentially saying is, one can touch matter, but they cannot touch the "order" or "form" of it. This is what Aristotle calls a formal cause.

Prop. (2) says that the matter itself is what causes the attribute of heaviness in the statue. We call this a material cause.

Prop. (3) uses cause to mean, the reason for doing a thing; the end; purpose. These are final causes.

Prop. (4) suggests that something behaves as an agent for something else; the reason for something occurring.

[Unfinished?] Untitled Poem 2

Haiku for you
royal red hair here
playfully pry from pillow
makes me miss you more

song for you

Dusk is gone, dreams no more.
No more whispers, I implore--
Let me be a part, a part of this rapport.
Please let me up, have no fear,
Please Anselm, don't let me disappear.

Siren lady, lady luck of your sail's heart.
Ruby red locks, muse to whom you write,
freckles are stars to lover's cosmic chart.
Art like skylark, plays melody for sailor's delight.
But tell me, how will you pray?
How will you say what she needs hear,
if you don't let me up to play?

Did you not notice, her already healing?
Notice my abrupt awakening from sleep?
Or that you're once again feeling?
So let me write

...

how can i stop from smiling
how can i stop my heart from pounding
how can i say what i want to say
when i was afraid of waking up my heart?
i want to sit with you in the rain
i want to show you what it means
to live without restraint on love
can you help put these wings back on
show me how to fly again
can you wait while i tiptoe to edge
of life's ledge
jump to break a mold, of all that's old
that holds us back
to start anew, let God renew
whatever it is He wants us to
tell me if you want to try
let our faults die
do what we can by day
and at night let the rest lie
love-locked gaze at every stage
near or far has no sway
on what can't be touched anyway
for love is such a wondrous thing
invisible as it may be,
it somehow makes us want to cling
in a new way of being free.

[Unfinished] untitled poem

pixie prancers play on lily pads
fox fire hair, like wild whips
snapping to their spiraled steps
with gold flowered tiaras
and mischievous eyes

cannot catch such a creature
must dance with them instead
must ask the right questions
or so it has been said
they answer with a "Mayyy-be!"
while smile slides --------
like new moon in the night sky
crescent of

cycle of wane & wax
...

Philosophical Arguments on Homosexuality

[charged to lead a group on homosexuality; did own research by pittling around]


===========================DEFINITONS==============================


Homosexual: having sexual attraction to only those of the same sex.


=======================SECULAR ARGUMENT=============================

(1) homosexuality is natural
(2) whatever is natural is good [tacit]
(3) homosexuality is good


REFUTATION OF PREMISE 2
A. Assp: whatever is natural is necessarily good OR 1. Assp: whatever is natural is necessarily good
B. cancers & diseases are bad. 2. sin is bad
C. cancers & disease are natural. 3. sin is natural
D. cancers & diseases are good (A & C) 4. sin is good (1 & 3)
E. cancers & diseases are good & bad (B & D) 5. sin is good & bad (2 & 4)
Contradiction Contradiction
F. Not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily good. 6. It is not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily good.

* This is a different claim than saying "whatever is good is necessarily natural." I might still make this claim in "some sense"
* Let no man nor woman use the "you can see homosexuality in nature" argument, for it always has the tacit premise "natural is good"
* A common theme is to cite 100 case studies of homosexuality in other cultures. Laughably,
I might cite 100 case studies for murder yet they accept the former and reject the latter as
being morally acceptable.

JUSTIFCATION OF PREMISE 1
x. 52% of identical twins are likely of being gay if one is.
* in comparison with 22% for fraternal twins and 11% for unrelated (e.g.adopted) brothers
y. If the likelihood of individuals being gay who share genes is higher than those who do not, then being gay is genetically caused.
z. Being gay is genetically caused (A & B)

REFUTATION OF PREMISE 1
i. If being gay is entirely determined by genes, then individuals having 100% of the same genes will both be gay.
ii. Not all identical twins are gay if one is.
iii. Being gay is not entirely determined by genes.

RE-JUSTIFICATION
y. "...then being gay is partially genetically caused.
* research: identical twins 52%, chromosome X28, chromosome cluster pattern of 7, 8, & 10

REFUTATION OF RE-JUSTIFICATION
m. things that have partial effect in causality can be necessary, sufficient, or have a role but be neither
n. if a thing plays a necessary role in causing homosexuality, then an individual being homosexual means that thing is present.
o. if a thing plays a sufficient role in causing homosexuality, then that thing's presence means the individual is gay.
p. the presence of these suggestions have not been shown to always be in homosexuals nor have homosexuals been shown to always have them.
q. the current research has not found necessary nor sufficient causes for homosexuality.
* Furthermore, Hamer (x28 researcher and a homosexual [so no motive to lie I would presume]) says his research proved little if not nothing
* In 2005 Mutanski repeated the test with a larger sample and found no significant different between x28 in homosexuals and heterosexuals
* However, it did show some evidence for differences in homosexuals combinations of chromosome 7q36, 8p12, and 10q26

ENGUARDE
* science deals with correlations and does not conclude with statements about necessary nor sufficient causes. Even so...

u. 95% confidence interval is standard for scientific "proof" in any research
v. test of twins was research
w. twin test was held up to 95% confidence interval

RETORT
* the end of science practically speaking is a 95% confidence interval in which scientists and everyday people alike stop saying "correlate" and use the word "cause. Even so...

i. id twin test was held up to 95% confidence interval (w)
ii. proof says 52% of id twins are homosexual if counterpart is
iii. id twins to a 95% confidence interval shows 52% of id twins are homosexual if counterpart is
iv. id twins have 100% of the same genes
v. cannot be said homosexuality is completely genetically causal, partial is still possible but not proven



======================UNDERSTANDING THE CONCLUSION======================================

POSSIBILITIES THAT CAN STILL MEAN CAUSALITY

* Whether or not genes are expressed (genotype vs phenotype) is a matter of penetrance.
* The amount of expression of the gene can change the quantity or quality of the gene's expression.
* Assuming such a gene exists, these can explain slightly effeminate to super-fab homosexuality as well as bisexuality
* Epigenetics suggests certain genes get "turned on or off" from non-genetic factors (e.g. environment, nurture, action, etc.)
* this field of genetics is in serious research mode right now, check out The Outsider magazine's article on long distance human running genes



WHAT TO BE AWARE OF

* because a thing is possible does not mean it is actual
EG.1 "It's possible I can fly but that doesn't mean I can."
EG.2 "It's possible coffee caused me to stay up all night but that doesn't mean it did."
* burden of proof is upon the person making the claim because that person is the one asserting truth of the proposition
EG.1 "Crocodile gods once ruled Egypt with an iron claw and 80's jump suits."
EG.2 "Every night I swim across the clouds with packs of angel dingos."
* because a thing cannot be disproven does not mean it is true
EG.1 "If you can't disprove God's existence then He must exist.
EG.2 "It's possible homosexuality is caused by genes in some part and we haven't discovered its penetrance likelihood and/or a trigger for it yet."



===========================DISCUSSION: ASSUME PARTIAL CAUSALITY=============================

For the sake of discussion: (hypothalamus research)

(1) ASSP: partial genetic causality has been found for homosexuality -- that is to say it is in some way 'natural'
(2) If penetrance, then homosexuality might be along the lines of eye color or hand coordination.
* How would you read Scripture? Change your ideas? Why or why not?
(3) If something along the lines of epigenetics, then it could be turned on or off.
* If turned on/off by habitual actions (e.g. sheer will power and/or repeated action)
* If turned on/off by environmental factors (e.g. overdose of estrogen or lack of testosterone during pregnancy; multiple sons)
* If turned on/off by nurturing factors (e.g. something Oedipusian or Freudian)
THEN -- would you change your ideas? Justify your claim.



===========================NATURAL ARGUMENT REVISITED===============================

* If we are to deal with what is "natural," then we need to specify if it is "naturally good" or "naturally bad" since "natural" unqualified is not necessarilY either.




EVOLUTIONARY STANDPOINT

(i) If a trait increases the likelihood of survival, then it is "naturally good" and if one prohibits the likelihood of survival then it is "naturally bad."
(ii) Homosexuality prevents the survival of a species
A. homosexuality prevents reproduction.
B. reproduction is necessary for the survival of a species
C. homosexuality prevents the survival of a species
(iii) Homosexuality is naturally bad. (i & ii)

&

(x) Some theories suggest the gay gene was advantageous to primitive humans as "gay uncle caretakers" or actually a "bisexual gene to trick alpha males so they can get the women while the other men hunt gene."
(y) If these are the case, then the gay gene would be advantageous.
(z) ...

Problem: No conclusion can be drawn from the second argument because such theories are possibilities with no scientific evidence. We cannot say any ARE the case, so the THEN of the statement cannot be said to follow. Dawkins makes me giggle with these theories though.If one of these theories can be proven scientifically, then it would come to pass that we have an antinomy in which we have two arguments that have contradictory conclusions. Neither in this case disproves the other, since arguments disprove premises, not conclusions. In such a case further research would need to be done to disprove one. If it be the bisexual gene that evolved into a homosexual gene then there never was an advantageous homosexual gene, merely an advantageous bisexual gene. Even then we must ask why it evolved into a gene that is not advantageous. And if this be the case then the first argument still holds water.




ETHICAL STANDPOINT (different approach to nature)

(1) If an action is good or evil, then it is due to the action being in part controlled or willed by the individual.
* contrapositive: "if something is uncontrollable, then it is neither good nor evil"
* This does not mean the individual is amoral, merely the action is amoral
* EG: Digestion is neither good nor evil, it is an involuntary action. Murder is evil, it requires a will by definition.
(2) Homosexuality is due to an uncontrollable genetic nature. (ASSP)
(3) Homosexuality is neither good nor evil.




ETHICAL COUNTER-ARGUMENT
(1) Homosexuality is due to a nature being triggered.
(2) If the trigger occurred during pregnancy other environmental factors the individual was born into, then the expression of the nature could be controlled.
* this is to say that it was mere potential and not actualized nature, or possibility not actuality
(3) If the trigger occurred due to actions of the individuals own will and/or habituated actions, then the expression of the nature could be controlled.
(4) If (2), then the expression was caused by someone other than the individual.
(5) If (3), then the expression was caused by the individual.
(6) If (4), then the individual is not at fault and cannot be said to be good nor evil by the "ethical standpoint argument."
(7) If (5), then the individual is at fault and can be said to be good or evil


(2) Homosexuality in some part is genetically caused. (ASSP)
(3) The person cannot be morally blamed for their homosexuality.
* EG: A person driving down the road hits a child. They are a cause of the child's death, but so is the child. Assuming the person followed all laws we say the driver was an accidental cause and not morally at fault for the child's death, though physically he assisted in the causation of the death.
* QUESTION: What types of triggering actions could the individual be held accountable for? How much are they responsible if their gene makes them susceptible to the change whereas the same action by another individual would not experience the change?



======================PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL/ETHICAL DARWINISM FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT=================================

Most of it commits the appeal to nature fallacy(1), naturalistic fallacy(2), and/or the is-ought problem (3).

1. Merely because a thing is natural doesn't necessitate it is good, QED in first example.
2. Equating nature with good often results in empty tautologies / circular reasoning.
Q: What's nature?
A: Whatever is good.
Q: Well what's good?
A: Whatever is natural.
3. We cannot logically draw an imperative conclusion from a series of observatory is-statements.
1. blah blah is the case.
2. If blah blah is the case then we just can't be havin' that now can we?
3. we ought to yadda yiddy



====================================CONCLUSIONS SO FAR============================

The natural argument for homosexuality fails.

Science makes amoral, value-free judgments about what is via reductio ad absurdum by observational data. When people take conclusions and say "we ought to accept X" based on the conclusion, they step outside the bounds of their argument and are no longer doing science, and their conclusion does not follow from their premises (is-to-ought). Scientific conclusions may be used in moral arguments but ethics remains it's own separate science which cannot be discerned from any amount of discovery. One must either use some form of sentimental value judgment in beginning to produce an ethic or try to deduce some form of ethic which then might take scientific conclusions into account.


================================MORE NOTABLE RESEARCH==================================

The most effective research that suggests a complete biological cause or partially biological and partially pre-natal causation for sexual orientation would be those done on the neurons of the hypothalamus (INAH3). Those of heterosexual men were thought to be significantly larger than those of homosexual men and remarkably similar to that of heterosexual women. However, the sampling was rather shoddy work and many men were "presumed" to be heterosexual which could not be verified due to their post-mortem volunteering. The test was repeated in 2001 with much of the same sampling discipline but none of the results were statistically significant.

Hormone tests in the past have given inconsistent results although a new study in 2010 "Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation" claims to have discovered a completely biological cause during the intrateurine period when the fetal brain develops. There is nothing new about this hypothesis merely the claim that it has been proven this time. Time will tell.

Current hype about fruit flies that scientists have turned "gay." Only works on males and if other males removed they will mate with females. No research done on whether or not the gene which is similar in human beings will have a similar effect. Often cited as somehow conclusive, another poor natural argument not to mention it has forced bisexual behavior at best and even then it doesn't apply to humans (categorical error I would think depending on DNA similarity).



=======================================================================================
===================================HOLY ASSUMPTIONS====================================
=======================================================================================

Inerrancy of Scripture

==========================RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT========================
Romans 1:26-28
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

ROMANS ARGUMENT
1. Homosexual lusts and acts are against nature.
2. Whatever is against nature is against God. [tacit]
3. Homosexual lusts and acts are against God.
4. Whatever is against God is evil.
5. Homosexual lusts and acts are evil.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT
1. It is not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily good.
2. Whatever is not necessarily good is not of God. *something wrong with this? wording? soundness?
3. It is not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily of God.
* refutation of ROMANS-arg (2)

RESPONSE to COUNTER-ARGUMENT
ASSP: Whatever is not necessarily good is not of God.
1. Sex is bad outside of a marriage covenant.
2. Sex is good inside one.
3. Anything that is bad in some situations and good in others is not necessarily good.
4. Sex isn't necessarily good.
5. Sex is not of God.
6. God made sex.
7. Sex is both of and not of God.
* Contradiction
8. It's not the case that Whatever is not necessarily good is not necessarily of God.

ARGUMENT
7. It's not the case that whatever is necessarily good is of God [double negation]
8. If (7), then good and God are separate * Euthyphro's Paradox
9. If good and God are separate, then things are good because God says so or God follows the good.
10. If things are good because God says so, then the good is arbitrary, not necessary.
11. If God follows the good, then he is not the ultimate thing.
12. Good is necessary, not arbitrary.
13. God is ultimate thing.
14. Not the case that good and God are separate. (MT of 10, 11 using 12, 13)
15. Whatever is necessarily good is necessarily of God. (MT of 8, using 14)


===========================ANTINOMY & OTHER PROBLEMS================================================

8 & 15 are contradictory.
8 must be true because to assume otherwise results in contradiction.
8 results in contradiction if held true at 15

To hold 8 true or false ends up in contradiction, a paradox
Most paradoxes are results of asking the wrong question or stating things in such a way that it is a self-refuting statement.

*** Whatever is not necessarily good is not of God. ***
add a necessarily of God - this accounts for perversion of that which God created as well as bringing man-made things to goodness
*** Whatever is not necessarily good is not necessarily of God. ***

Something is wrong with my wording and particular use of necessary as applied to these two different words. I need to deal with this but it's unnecessary :) to do so right now. For there is yet another problem I have noticed:


The two sides of the argument seem to be using the word "nature" differently:


DEFINITION DISCUSSION
EG.1 I enjoy viewing nature.
EG.2 Nature is the subject of hard sciences.
EG.3 It is the nature of fire to burn.
EG.4 It is the nature of a cup to hold liquid.

Nature(1): wilderness; environment
Nature(2): physical cosmos; everything that materially "is"
Nature(3): essential properties of a thing (analytic knowledge)
Nature(4): purpose of a thing; telos

============================Short lesson on causality===============================

Aristotle
4 types: final, efficient, formal, material
E.G. An Urn's causes are to hold water, artist, circle, clay - respectively.
Christian says our causes are to be w/ God, parents, soul/spirit, sperm/egg - respectively
Francis Bacon and the introduction of inductive reasoning and the birth of hard sciences in 1500's sought to reject formal and final causes
from an evolutionary standpoint we might say final cause of any thing is to survive
I would uphold the formal causes from a molecular standpoint, order of matter can change elements, compounds, etc.
e.g. trans-fats vs other fats, same elements in play, the difference is the ordering of them (bent connection vs straight)

1. "It's natural" in pro-homoexual argument uses genes as Nature(3)
2. Nature(4) from genetic standpoint is always "for survival in such and such circumstances" and is caused by Nature(3)
3. Pro-homosexual arguments then want to say the root of Nature(4) is Nature(3) which is genetic.

x. "Natural use" in Romans uses sex as Nature(4)
y. Nature(4) from religious standpoint is always "to bring about communion with God."
z. "Natural use" of sex in Romans is to bring about communion with God.


=======================Christian Nature(3) Pro-Homosexual Argument=================================
A - original sin gives me a nature to sin ( "sin nature" )
B - Nature(3) cannot be changed. (essential not accidental qualities)
1. nature is of essential qualities
2. essenial qualities are necessary qualities of a thing
3. necessity of a thing is what makes a thing itself
4. nature is what makes a thing itself
5. if nature could change, then a thing would not be itself
6. a thing cannot be other than itself (principle of identity: x can never be not-x)
7. nature cannot change (mt 5,6)
C - One cannot be held accountable for what cannot be changed.
D - One cannot be held accountable for their nature.
E - Person X's homosexuality is due to their sin nature [Nature(3)]
F - Person X cannot be held accountable for their homosexuality.


REFUTATION OF SIN-NATURE
1. Only God can create.
2. Man is not God.
3. Thus, man cannot create.
4. God created our Nature(3).
5. If "Sin nature" exists, then either God created an evil Nature(3) or we did.
--- 6. ASSP: God created evil Nature(3)
| 7. Evil is the privation of Good.
| 8. God is Good.
| 9. If something creates an evil Nature(3), then the creator is also evil.
| 10. God is evil (6, 9)
| 11. God is Good and Evil (8, 10)
| *Contradiction
--- 12. Reject ASSP: It is not the case that God created evil Nature(3).
13. We did not create an evil Nature(3) (DS 3, 5)
14. Neither we nor God created an evil Nature(3). (Conj 12, 13)
15. There is no "sin nature." (MT 5, 14)


We end here. There is still much discussion on what "nature" means and what types of causality exist in reality, as well as research to be done genetically. I'll conclude that there is no evidence to suggest full causality, only partial, but even then the question of accountability, of whether or not it is a choice or due to environmental factors is left open. In one collegiate psychology of sexuality textbook their conclusion was that none of the traditional environmental factors have been shown to determine sexuality. They suggested biological factors should be researched, that perhaps an answer would lie there. This is tandem with the human genome project and the geneticists claim that there is no gene that fully determines sexuality, neither sufficiently nor necessarily, leaves geneticists pointing at psychologists hoping or answers. Unfortunately that leaves us with two sides pointing at the other and with us either shrugging in confusion or realizing the answer must lie elsewhere.







===========================================================================
=================================LINKS TO HELP=============================
===========================================================================

Philosophical Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Philosophical/Scientifc Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
* I use this type of argument once and it is the foundation for the scientific method. Know it before you say "science is" or "science says"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Genetic Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28genetics%29
Homosexual Studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results

Value Judgment Articles Citing Cases & Making Arguments
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
http://creation.com/creationism-and-the-problem-of-homosexual-behaviour
* has good research sources on other factors effecting homosexuality, however, most sources are pre-Genome project so not up-to-date
http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ [video]
* Pretty funny actually. Dawkins cracks me up. He does do a good job at the end of noting the necessary conditions if a gene exists though.

Experiential Judgments

Topics of Discussion:

A. Experience + Concept = Judgment
B. Propositional Truths
C. Craedo en & Craedo que
D. Observations today

A.
When dealing with any experience, we must remember that it is always interpreted. This interpretation is of some particular event or chain of actions which we hold collectively in our mind which is what we refer to colloquially as "our experience," which is quite different from "the experience."

For example, if I perceive of blue, my eye sends a signal to my brain and interprets some light frequency on the visible spectrum, relaying the image blue to my mind. My mind in turn processes this all within a moment and I spit up "blue" before I've taken conscious time to really mull over the experience.

Likewise, if I do some action which might be considered "good" or "evil," I must first consider the experience. I might feel guilt from some action, which I can then deduce must be from some belief as the cause. This in turn makes me turn toward introspection in which I better discern this belief I have and search for the justification of it. Now, the action itself is a series of physical gestures, a particular set which I only hold to be "good" or "evil" because I subsume the action(s) under such principles. In short, it takes some intellectual concept of "good" or "evil" for one to label an experience as "good" or "evil." Thus, there is a judgment taking place in which both the universal classification and a particular instance are synthesized. What results is "our experience."

When speaking of experience as a form of knowledge we must be careful then to say "the experience" taught me something, for it alone is meaningless. Likewise, a concept with a particular instance does little good for us. A more intriguing question to ask might be -- Can an experience change a concept?

We are apt to say that through experience we refine our concepts. However, if this is the case, then by what concept was the experience subsumed? By what was the experience interpreted? By what did we come to make a judgment?

Now in one way we might experience things and build concepts based on the outcomes. What we then find is that there is already some sort of other concept at work by which we give outcomes values. For example, I experience the taste of a turkey burger with onions and I enjoy it very much. From this experience I decide that turkey burgers are "good." Vice versa, I experience my friend's wrath when I tell them that their hair looks funny, and call it "bad." In such an example pleasure has become the concept by which I subsume particular experiences under and by which I begin making value judgments. I might experience God and it is pleasurable and I might experience stealing candy from a child and find it pleasurable. Not to be a moral intuitionist, but assuming the former is good and the latter is evil, then I've found inconsistency with pleasure as my concept for judging particular experiences.

Or perhaps we speak of intentions. One in which I intend to help my friend by driving him to the store but it turns out I don't know how to drive, which ends with us in a wreck. Here I've acted out of goodwill but with willing ignorance. In another instance I might intend to wreck a man's life for vengeance but by some strange twist of fate I end up assisting him in finding a lost family member.

Experience alone is fruitless for moral questions. It can only be useful for something like natural laws in which we can derive the laws from repetition. Unfortunately, the moral law is not so easy to discern, for while we can act and observe how our actions affect persons, moral judgments seem to need to concern themselves with both the ends and the intentions of any action. And these two qualifications are what classifies a thing as being part of a concept or not.

A satisfactory answer would be that our experience can lead some concepts to contradiction. Perhaps in showing some potential problems with experience I've actually also showed how it might benefit us. Some experiences can show us contradictory concepts which we then logically ought to forgo. This then allows a time in which we can adopt a new concept and see if it is internally consistent, trying it in the fires of life's experiences. This does not go to mean that we build concepts from experiences though.

It would seem then that experience will either be subsumed under my concept of good and evil, already in me, resulting in what I call "my experiences," which only teach me things insofar as I already had something non-experiential to understand. I then filed the experience under a concept through reason, or it will run into contradiction and my understanding will reach out for a new concept, though empirical information helps me to make the judgment that the experience and the concept are contradictory. Thus, it is even a synthesis of the two as a judgment which tells me to stop using a certain concept and not the experience itself. And even though the experience is beneficial in showing a logically inconsistent concept, it does not form new concepts. It shows what is not, not what is.

B.
This leads me into propositional truths. Our concepts are expressed in our minds as propositions and even experience is interpreted into propositional form so that a judgment can occur. It is then propositions that allow us to discuss and discern what our concepts of morality exactly our, not only within ourselves but with others. The advantages are numerous, in that we can choose at any time to concern ourselves with our beliefs and justifications in an easily manageable format, as well as have the wisdom of others guide our searches for proper and truthful propositional concepts.

Hence, when we experience something, make our judgment based on concepts, we speak of the experience in propositional form, e.g. It was great, fantastic, depressing, green, dark, etc. When our judgments are complete and we speak of this concept-experiential fusion, what we call "our experiences," it is important then to understand two things: (1) "our experiences" does not mean taste, touch, smell, etc. but any event in which action is taking place in our lives (2) "our experiences" are things that we believe to be true with personal attachment. The first is so that we do not confuse scientific truths or strictly empirical claims with what we speak of when we discuss our lives. The second is so that we distinguish say mathematical claims from claims of faith.

C.
Take something like a creed for example. They are called creeds because of the latin credere. Furthermore, there is a historical difference in ideologies concerning the phrases "craedo que" and "craedo en." The former is to say that "I believe that" and the latter says "I believe in." These are two radically different claims.

E.G.1 I believe that 2 + 2 = 4.
E.G.2 I believe in my brother.

I can argue craedo que God's exists in reality all day and perhaps make someone less sure of themselves, perhaps even consider religion a little more, but I cannot argue for "craedo en." This type of "belief in" a thing requires a lifetime of prayer, study, meditation, community, memory, and so forth. The summation of all this is that perhaps I grasp the concept for "good" and "evil" and am able to discern good acts from bad. Of course discerning and doing are quite different, but it's a step in the right direction. One must come to love what these propositions mean, what they stand for, not the words themselves.

D.
It is quite sad that some make the claim that "faith is more than propositional truths," without knowing what our forefathers have meant by this. Love of what the propositional truths mean is vital to faith. What our forefathers warned us was to fall in love with being right, of being able to discern, and forgetting application and learning to love such things. Unfortunately much of our contemporary church has taken it out of context and turned this essential part of faith into an anti-theology rant, supplicating it with moral intuition, fancying experience as an end-all-be-all. As a result there is a sort of intellectual apathy at best, hatred at worst, amongst our own community of the faithful. It doesn't help that some of our spiritual leaders have led the youth to war against history and intellectualism within the Church.

What we have then are poor judgments, those based on experience through some concept that merely points back at the experience as the way to classify things. It's quite silly to try and make a judgment about a particular by pointing to the particular itself, or even to try to point at the set of particulars for it results in impossibilities or empty tautologies. Either way we're left with a faith which is lacking a necessary component for the pious life.

The First Epistle of John

Topics of Discussion

A. Disposition of Character (1 John 3)
B. True Believers/Christians
C. Laws
D. Testing of Spirits (1 John 4)
E. Agapao

A. Disposition of Character
In 1 John 3, John is giving a warning to those who see men do wicked deeds but claim righteousness. This is a reoccurring theme during the early stages of the church, many pagan rituals were trying to be carried over, especially sexual immorality. I believe this is most notable in the case of the girls of Corinth who were sleeping with others at the temple because of men's old beliefs that such acts brought you closer to God.

The matter I'm particularly interested in though is how John tells us to be aware.

1 John 3:5-9

⁵And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. ⁶Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. ⁷Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. ⁸He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. ⁹Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Now let's look at what we can take from this with some simple logic. I'm going to use the present active tense for "sin" because the verb in Greek is hamartano which is present active. Now I'm not sure if it's simple, sin, or continuous, sinning. I'll use sinning for kicks but remember it could be the simple present active.

1. If you abide in [Christ], then you are not sinning.
2. If you are sinning, then you do not abide in Christ. (contrapositive)
3. You are sinning.
4. Thus, you do not abide in Christ [modus pollens]

1. If you are sinning, then you have not seen nor know Christ.
2. You are sinning.
3. You neither know nor see Christ. [modus pollens]

By conjoining these I can say
1. If you are sinning, then you are not abiding in Christ, do not know him, and have not seen him.

Now, if we take the street corner fire 'n brimstone minister interpretation, we end up with the idea that Christians do not sin. If you are sinning, then you never knew Christ, regardless of prayer, baptism, spiritual experiences, etc. But let's skip ahead to the end of the Epistle to look for another clue:

1 John 5:17-20

¹⁶If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, we shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. ¹⁷All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. ¹⁸We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. ¹⁹And we know that we are of God, and the whole word lieth in wickedness. ²⁰And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Some like to read passages as if it is always written to them. I do not doubt that Scripture is written for all Christians. But there are different ways to inspire or make people think about their faith. E.G. If I read Ephesus or Corinthians and it said "you," it would be unfounded for me to think it meant Blake Tipton. He is writing to the leaders of the church at those places. And while we can be inspired, the things he claims with certainty about his brothers and sisters there is from a relationship he had with those people, which is not the case between us and say Paul. However, John makes no personal references here, but in order to be consistent we must say that whoever the listener is to which he says "we are in God" must also be one who is not sinning. So when James says we're in God, can hear God, and so forth, this is on the presumption that we are already righteous. Surely James was, but the question here is, our we?

And to answer this, how can we know? For in the end James comments that we can know we have eternal life and to build up our confidence in faith. I do not take this to be literally, I simply think James is trying to give us confidence in faith, and faith always rests upon a certain amount of uncertainty. And in Revelation it is said that we are judged by our deeds, and there is but one judge, so we would have to be God to know in a literal sense where our fates lie. However, I do think he means to say that in abiding in Christ, through deeds of righteousness and following the commands without them being grievous (1 John 5:3), that we can have a good idea. That's perhaps left for another conversation though.

In 1 John 5:2-3 we find that to love others we must love God and follow his commands and that it is not grievous to us. Anyone can follow a command, but to not be grievous requires a desire to follow it. Now I might say that I follow commands everyday because I have an intellectual desire to do God's will, but it still burdens me in doing somethings like...being nice. There is some desire some lacking, for grief is an emotion, and it is the emotional desire that I lack. In fact I would say sometimes it is grievous for me to follow God's command. Insofar as this is the case I am closer to God than say the man that has committed the sin that leads to death, but I am not among the ranks of John and the like. For here a man has aligned all his parts in such a way that his being as one cries out in concordance to be with God.

WARNING: TANGENT AHEAD

*BoNuS 1: One of the many reasons I am not a Baptist is because Baptists believe that all sin is equivalent. Clearly we have a delineation between sin leading to death and sin not leading to death. Now categorically I could say something like, "Of course all sin is the same, it's a will turned against God." But this is not what Baptist doctrine states, nor what Baptists who do their homework believe. Baptists traditionally say all sin is the same in the sense that God views judgment of it equally, that is to say rape and murder and drunkenness and licentiousness are equivalent.

*BoNuS 2: Now I could be wrong about Bonus#1 because I said doctrine. Baptists don't actually have doctrine because there is no history, there is no unity. There are optional conventions in which people still split on beliefs and there is no unison amongst peoples claiming to be the same thing - "Baptist." This is why there are still Free Will Baptists and Determinist Baptists. And insofar as there is no unison amongst churches in the Baptist Denomination, and not amongst congregations either, "doctrine" would not be a choice word.

*BoNuS 3: All in all it reminds me of this one time where the churches were all in disarray and no one agreed on anything and everyone had questions and lots of nonsense was going on. How could we be brothers and sisters if we couldn't even agree on what His commands were? So what happened? Oh yeah, the Apostles organized the churches geographically, led them all, and took to writing letters to them so that doctrine was established to end all the chaos. And what happened to those letters? They went on to become Scripture. But you know what, that is all bologna. We should be individualistic about our beliefs and congregations should build the church because Scripture probably doesn't know what it's talking about anyway... God save the U.S.

OK, TANGENT IS GONE. WE'RE GOOD.

And in looking at the word for sin "hamartia" or the verb "hamarton," we see it means to miss the mark as in archery. Sometimes we're closer or further from the bullseye. It is this reason why I say that faith is a process, and not black and white. If I am sinning, then certainly I am not with God, for my shot has gone further away from the target. And The Law was a mentor which sinners cannot follow and which the righteous have no need for, for they are lovers of the Good. So what we are forced to conclude is that there is this state between the sinner and the righteous which The Law was made for. And from Scripture and experience we see that sometimes we do good and sometimes we do evil, but we are generally moving towards one or the other. So even within these three states, I do not believe it's a jump from A to B to C. But that each is a spectrum in and of itself which we can grow more in or away from.

So what are we to say about sinning leading to not knowing, seeing, nor abiding in Christ? Surely, at that moment you are not, for what is in God, can do no evil. And the thoughts and desires leading to that moment were devoid of God. And we cannot say that we are being, for God alone is Being, and what we call the Nought, the Void, Chaos, is not a thing, just a word to denote lack of being. Our lives are in a state of becoming, and as such whatever we are as a whole is a result of many actions, founded upon thoughts and desires, resulting in some disposition of character. If we are righteous than our state is that seeking virtue, and if we are wicked, then we seek to go against God.

Looking at James and Romans we can build a delightful concept of faith and works which so intermingled that to separate one from the other is death to ourselves for works mix with faith and faith is made perfect. And while each has its merits it is the perfection of the two that we seek. James shows us signs of what this Sanctification is like, that we should love others, work virtue in them, love them, pray for them, and love God and his commands, taking His will for our own because we love it, not because we feel forced to.

BoNuS 4: Man I'm ragging on the Baptists today. I suppose these discussions just remind me when I was first discovering I wasn't a Baptist. I'd feel bad but what can you do with group of people so fundamentally convinced that they don't need any leaders for The Church then read The Book which shows the opposite? Anyway, another reason is the widespread idea of justification alone as well as the concept of being "saved" as if it's all done and over with, lest we forget to work out our faith with fear and trembling and mix it with works. Did not even the Apostles shame themselves in their times of faithlessness, or when Peter denied Christ thrice? There are times when we do evil, but our overall actions, our state of character can be cultivated to virtue in such a way that we can remain in Christ and be forgiven. It isn't a matter of being "saved" but of a good conscience towards God coupled with an active life of piety through our own lives and our works in others.

Going back to the beginning. If it be sin, then I would say it speaks to the moment of the sin that we are devoid of God. If it be sinning, then I say it speaks toward a particular state of character that is developed through this active way of life in which sin is the primary character of a person. The key was not in disproving anything or trying to be brutal, but in merely asking, "What exactly is sin and what does it mean to be sinning?" Good questions lead to good answers. God prevails.



B. True Believers/Christians

This isn't something that I've derived from John's First Epistle, but rather from conversations with my brothers and sisters about belief. Often times passages that are interpreted as black or white when it comes to belief result in these ridiculous dichotomies such as "True Christian" or "Christian." I say ridiculous not to create an argument by ridicule, so allow me to explain how absurd it really is.

If we say "True Christian" to delineate ourselves from "Christian," then the word "True" is the differentia by which we are trying to separate ourselves from others. Now, if we as the "True Christians" have Truth and the "Christians" do not, and things are either True or False and there is no middle between the two, then we are implicitly calling them "False Christians." But how can a thing be false to itself?

When I say X, it is derived that when I point at the thing it is True that it is X. It is superfluous to add "True" onto a thing. Assuming it was not, we would say something like this, "Well it was false that X is X until I added true to it." But with such implied statements, what we are saying is that X is not X until we add truth to it. Unfortunately man has no such power, and for a thing to not be itself is simply to to exist.

In 1 John 5:20 it says "true God." Didn't you say we shouldn't add on "true" to things?
In every day talk, we are apt to say "The One True God." And in this matter we are making a judgment by holding up other gods to ours. What it is we are saying isn't so much superfluous as it is to judge these other gods, insofar as they exist as ideas, to say ours is true. The meaning behind such words is implicitly talking about existence of being as an idea, in reality, both, or neither. Surely other gods exist, otherwise God would not have commanded us not to worship them. But this not go to say they exist in reality, in fact we say they exist merely as ideas. Others might be called the null set when fully played out, for while we say the Roman and Greek gods are ideas, when someone is apt to say all are perfect, and perfection has no hatred towards itself, those gods fought one another. The important thing about saying true in this sense is that it is a matter of the type of existence as being true or false coupled with an intellectual judgment. Truth when ascribed to believers is often a moral judgment and is done to separate ourselves from our brothers. But John speaks much about those who claim to love God but not their brothers as being liars. So there is a difference in the usage, one being wicked and one being righteous.

Now in a loose sense I understand what it is people are wishing to do, delineate those who claim to be Christians and those who live it out. We must be careful with such claims, for surely we know some to be true by their deeds, but even then we must not compare, but rebuke a brother gently, for there is but one law and one lawgiver, and He alone is to judge. We are commanded to love, so let us keep such things in mind when we wish to discuss such matters. Let us look at our brother and sisters actions, and help them to stop if it be sinful before it becomes a state of character. For once this is done, what fellowship does righteousness have with the unrighteousness^{(2 Cor 6:14)}? And though righteous men are cautious with friendship, the wicked lead them astray^{(Proverbs 12:26)}.



C. Laws
When we say The Law it refers to the Pentateuch, or the first five books of Scripture: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Specifically we often mean The Ten Commandments and/or the 613(?) Levitical laws. Through Christ we were lifted from The Obligation of The Law, no longer having needed the mentor. And now we say The Law was never made for the righteous, nor the sinner, but for those who see God and want him, but lack the willpower, intellect, and right heart to pursue such noble things.

What I want to talk about is this nonsense I keep hearing amongst Baptists and Methodists that we don't need laws or rules anymore because we love God and we can be forgiven.

In John's First Epistle he says that in order to love one of the requirements is to keep God's commands. Do we not see in the Gospels that Christ says if you love me, then you shall keep my commands?

Yes, The Law is gone. But are all laws gone? No. Christ gave us two commands which summed up The Law in a way that it is both "new" and "old" if we use these terms loosely. It is no longer a command to avoid doing a thing, but to do a thing and do so through love.

During one of my trips to Savannah I got to listen to a man stand-in for the pastor talk about how he couldn't keep up with a few laws and somehow concluded that its impractical that he should be commanded to keep up with many, ultimately concluding that we don't need laws because of The Christ. False.

1. Commands are laws. [e.g. Decalogue]
2. Christ gave us commands.
3. Therefore, Christ have us laws.

That argument not good enough? Let's go again.

1. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not him. (1 John 2:4)
2. Commands are laws.
3. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his laws, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (substitution)

And one more for fun:

1. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
2. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
3. Commandments are laws [oh snap!]

Let's reformulate:

1. If you love God and keep his commandments, then you love the children of God.
2. Love of God is to keep his commandments and doing so is not grievous.
3. Commandments are laws [simple baby]
4. If you keep his commandments and not do so grievously, then you love the children of God. [substitution 1,2]
5. If you keep his laws and not do so grievously, then you love the children of God.

Whooo, what a workout. That's good stuff. In conclusion, commandments are laws so let's not confuse "laws" with "The Law" when given commandments.



D. Testing of Spirits

1 John 4:1-3

¹Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirit whether they are of God:because many false prophets are gone out into the world. ²Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: ³And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

It's hard to tell if someone is telling the truth. What's worse is when they claim spiritual words for you. "I had a word for you from God" is the sort of situation I mean. How do we discern such things? The short answer is faith and testing and waiting to prove all things. Hold a hypothesis, it either comes true or it doesn't. We can over time discern what a person's spiritual gift is based on such things.

But what about speaking truth all the time? As Christians do we not say that the Apostles were righteous men? Those who sought out the Lord, loved their neighbors, and find the end of sanctification? The Spirit was always with them so they always spoke truth.
This is quite the exception though. As earlier stated, we are on a spectrum, and I see the Apostles as on the end, and most of us somewhere down the line from there.
If someone tells me, "Jesus Christ came in the flesh and is the Lord." Then I must conclude by this passage that it is the spirit of God which speaks in them. Does this mean that everything that follows from their mouth after must be true? God Forbid. I would wish to be in such a world but alas, it is not. We can see this with our brothers and sisters who have arguments over points of doctrine. Since they take logically opposite sides, they both cannot both be write though they both claim Christ is King.


All I can say is, at that moment of that utterance, given it was a belief in God and not a factual belief, the person had the spirit of God within them. Anything else we are left up to decide through good conversation with men and women seeking piety. We must reason through love and seek consistency with the Scriptures and tradition, for novelty does not equate to Truth and change as an unqualified thing is the enemy of God.

BoNuS: This is why I hate the word "progressive," people always bring along baggage that is not contained within the concept itself, such as better, good, etc. This is also why I have strong moral problems with President Obama's election tactics, it preyed upon such wrongful and weak thinking. A brother in Christ ought not do such things. Ambiguity puts hope for those in despair to fill in the blank: change for ______ which is another horrible thing to do. The only time change unqualified ought to be considered is when things can be no worse. But this is never the case on earth, for I can always imagine something worse. And I might go as far to say that such circumstances are impossible.

On a second note, when worshipping we find people often caught up in the goosebumps and the guitar chord so much that they attribute it to God. And in that moment that say "Yes Christ, yes you are real and you love me" or some such thing. Though they use the word Christ, I would say sometimes they put the name Christ on the feeling, and are not actually speaking of Christ. In such cases I am fine to say, "Though you claim to speak of Christ, I do not think you are doing so."


Any sort of spiritual experience we have, whether communal or individual ought always to have careful deliberation and thought. For any experience we have, there is always an interpretation, John knows this and is telling us to "be sure the spirits are of God." This takes thought process and not a feeling, for to be sure it is of God, if we are to be consistent with the rest of this Epistle, we are making a knowledge claim about God. And to know God it is said we must love him and our brothers, and follow his commands. If we never think of any of these things while experiencing something we think is spiritual, then we have no justification for thinking what we are experiencing is Christ, having not taken our commands and advice from our Christian brother and Scripture seriously.


Now conjoin these two ideas and what you have is that you can test a spirit, figure out it is God, but whatever follows after that isn't necessarily also of God. We can sing songs, have images, and so forth, but we cannot be certain for we must always be testing such things. We do however have probable reason that whatever experience follows is also from God. But even then if there is some message, prophecy, or whatnot, we must hold it and test it. Prove all things, test all spirits, but always be open to spiritual experience, and know faith is always with uncertainty. As John says, we can know Christ, abide in him, see him, but this says nothing about other knowledge claims. So I'm just trying to formulate a reasonable way to deal with such experiences from common sense. We must have faith that if we keep His commands and love him and our neighbors, that good things will follow through diligence and love of what is Good.

E. Agapao

I was going to do a section on the love of God, brothers, and its relationship with commandments but I ended up having to talk about it other sections. Agape is the noun for selfless God-like love, agapao is the verb form. Huzzah hurrah!




I've been doing this since I got up at 8 for breakfast. It's now 1. I'd say it's time to end my prayers and get back out to my people. For just as Christ prayed in the morning to his Father, he also lived with his brothers and sisters by day.
Kyrie Eleison,
blake

Meek Confessions, Late Night Expressions

I love bodies of water. I love sleeping outside in the woods. I'm always afraid of what's in them though.

After twilight begins to fade into the night one can only see the outline of the treetops. The night sky is a navy blue at this point, but the trees are a giant black-blotted mess, allowing one to still be able to distinguish the darkness of the sky from the trees. It's at this time, when I was a child, that I thought they might be giants standing shoulder to shoulder. Sometimes when the wind would blow I thought that was them pushing and grinding up against one another trying to find a comfortable position.

I hate that I can only identify the dippers and Orion's Belt in the night sky. I've had an astronomy book since I was in the 4th grade with a wheel which can spin according to the month and hour that you're in, revealing the constellations that can be seen in the Northern Hemisphere. Every few years I pull it out and try to figure it out but get aggravated and put it away. It's a kid's book. This makes me feel like an idiot.

The last few inches of a cigar become increasingly hot and nasty in taste. I keep smoking to the end though because at the end the cigar produces more smoke, which I like to play around with when exhaling. By the time I finish it my mouth tastes so nasty I go brush my teeth until I can only taste my toothpaste.

When I am having a sense of love coming upon me, whether this be of friendship, romantically, or family, but cannot act upon it I can't enjoy movies, games, or other forms of entertainment. The only thing I can think of to do is to go out into wild, exercise, or sit by myself at night. Right now I haven't been getting in shape for the right reasons; it's more of an escape from my mind.

When I try to remember being younger I can't remember the state of my mind. It's just pictures and images, but I always attribute my present beliefs, justifications, etc. to the memory, as if I've never changed.

I have a specific laugh I do amongst friends when I think what they're saying or doing is wicked but I don't know how to tell them.

Waiting and uncertainty in combination will drive me mad. Even when I know in some situations the two are necessary I can't get my mind to drive the two away. The longer I have the two, the more each tends to amplify the other.

I probably have less than 10 real friends. And after rereading my Aristotle, I'm more inclined to think this. I've gone through my life being friends with people because of utility or pleasure but rarely have I found someone which I have goodwill, a since of similarity, and an acknowledgment of some virtue in them coupled with the desire for it to grow. I can identify them when I miss them or when I will go through pains for them, or most notably...both.

I enjoy music better late at night when it is faint and sounds raspy like an old 1950's radio.

My familial experience is messing up my concept of storge. However, the more I fight with my immediate family the more I reach out to my extended family. I suppose I somehow know a need for it and am instinctively trying to hold some sort of family together in my head. My philosophizing has found me God, and has nearly run me off from my nuclear family. I don't know what to do about it.

A girl once let me borrow an orange plastic ring when I was about four or five. I had a moral battle about whether or not to return it. In the end I decided to keep it. My mother found it and had me return it shortly before we moved away. I never stopped feeling the guilt from that decision.

I once got in an argument with a kid because he took a ball I had called dibs on sometime earlier. When we got in an altercation over it I went ahead and popped him on the nose. My substitute teacher for the day turned out to be his mother. She took me inside to give me a talk which turned into her slapping me across the face. I remember having blurred vision and a strong sense of embarrassment. By the time my parents found out it was the end of the day and there was no physical proof of the slap. She was put elsewhere and I remained embarrassed for not being able to do something about it.

Somewhere between three and six I went through our mail and found a pornographic magazine. It's the earliest I remember lusting. I didn't understand what I was looking at. My mother found me standing in the living room trying to figure it out. She told me it was a mistake and wasn't supposed to be in our mailbox. I've never mentioned it to her again. I don't know if she was telling the truth or not.

My best friend and I got into a fight in first grade. I hit him three times in the face then pulled his hair till he hit the ground. He cried till his parents picked him up thirty minutes later. I felt bad for knowing that our argument was no reason to fight.

I got into trouble at five for throwing a giant moth over the fence. I was trying to save him but my teacher insisted I was being malicious. She told me I could have broken his back. She was my math and science teacher who taught me about bugs. I told her bugs didn't have spines to break. She got angry and made me sit on the wall for the rest of recess. I felt betrayed since I thought we were good friends.

I remember being three or four and walking around the corner to see my father laying hands around my mother's throat. I never told them I remember it.

I recall guilt tripping my father for having a photograph of another boy on his dresser. I told my parents I was going to run away. I asked if he had another son and he told me no. At twelve I found out it was my older brother Adam. If I was the father I probably would have done the same.

The day my brother Dallas was born I was three. I still remember sitting with my mother and watching Jaws with my father at the side of the bed. I had to leave until after the birth. When they told me I could come in I bolted down the hallway and tripped short of the door, getting a nasty rugburn on my nose in the process. Years later I found a photograph of Dallas' birth, my nose burnt with excitement.

In fourth grade I had a friend named Dan. Dan had troubles running and a speech impediment. A friend and I took him under our wing and taught him how to overcome his awkward legs so that he could run and play soccer with us. It was customary to trip people during our games. The first time Dan did it two boys jumped him knowing he was too weak to defend himself. When I saw it I ran over and beat both of them. That was the first time I used my fists for a Just cause.

In second grade I was put through anger management without my parents consent by the school. They didn't find out till I told them years later. I didn't know that's what it was till years later.

I've been in love 13 times in my life, the earliest was 3rd grade. Most of these never played out due to my shy nature. The times they did they were always based on utility or pleasure. Maybe 13 will be my good luck charm.

My favorite number is 13. I was born on a Friday 13 and my mother was, my brother was supposed to but he decided to go all he-man and ninja-kick his way out sooner. Ever since I was young I always thought 13 meant that other peoples times of poor luck were the times I would find good luck.

I remember bragging to my brother that I could "turn anything evil" with words. I guess I never overcame that corrupting ability till college.

My father wrote a poem for my assignment in the 4th or 5th grade. My mother for me in the 7th grade. I was lauded for my creative writing at these ages but I couldn't write poetry. Interestingly enough I picked it up in my undergrad days.

If I'm 28 and not married I'm going to be one unhappy camper.

I say I have all these theological issues with not being Roman Catholic but the truth is I decided to go Anglican instead of RC because I wanted to marry and be a holy man. I do have issues now, but they weren't deciding factors then. I was undecided on papal authority and still am.

My will is incredibly weak. I have to internally yell at myself to avoid evil and do good. When I'm having trouble I say to myself "militant will" continuously to remind me of the strength and distinction the will has from desires.

I hate it when people tell me they were uncomfortable attempting to talk to me because I seemed too intellectual or intimidating. I hate it more when I tell them I see myself as neither and they only see that as pride.

I have an obsession with love dialogues. Chalk it up to my Platonic education. My experience has shown me I am unsatisfied unless I have all four types: agape, eros, philia, and storge. I used to worry that such talk seemed unmanly, now I think it's something I need to know in order to be a man. Every man needs God, a woman, a family, and friends if he is to be virtuous/pious and happy.

I regret the way I treated my brother when growing up: the times I left him at the house, the times I called him stupid, the times I made him feel helpless. I've apologized many times but he never believes I mean it.

I wish I had wanted to learn more from my father when he offered to teach me things.

I hope my mother finds something more in life. Growing up it seemed that nine times out of ten she looked unhappy. I wonder sometimes if I was the only one in the family that noticed.

I wish my family knew more about forgiveness. It appears that every side of my family tree is wrought with rifts, feuds, and bad history.

I hope someday in the future that when I say "what ought to be" isn't confused with "what I want."

I almost quit my campus ministry job several times during the first semester.

I never felt like I really fit in with people my age. The things I want to talk about it, the ways I enjoy hanging out, the things that I see guiding my decisions, what I'm looking for. Maybe it has something to do with my lack of true friends. I always did what others my age did because if I didn't then I would have had no one.

The only things that get me truly excited, that sense of exhilaration that comes from the excessive feeling of greatness or mystery, is fear and eros. In Costa Rica I enjoyed what I did, and saw it was good, and this had its own appropriate emotion, but the only time I was excited was when our team decided to trek out into the jungle, into the unknown. And now when my mind is not kept busy my heart races to uncontrollable levels and it feels as if it's carving a pit into my chest. And all I can do is run out my door and down the street and back until I'm out of breath and my body has nothing left to do but collapse. And even all my philosophizing and reading is but a momentary escape, for it does nothing but remind me.