Just a hunk a junk

Long ago in a far-away land… (“Tamo daleko, daleko od mora…”)

We actually it was in Belgrade, then the capital of the Union of Federated Socialist Republics of Yugoslavia, in about 1986.  I wanted to buy a short-wave radio.  I was also looking for a cassette tape player. (No Millenial better say, “A what player?”)

There was a Philips store in Belgrade, or at least one that had Philips brand products.  I didn’t want to buy a lesser brand, though I doubt there was a lesser brank that had what I wanted.

I saw the radio in the picture above in the display window.  It was new and shiny.  For its day, it was high-tech electronics.

I told the clerk that I wanted to buy it.  He looked at me as if I had lost my mind. “Why do you want to buy it here?  You could buy it in Vienna for half the cost.  The taxes double the cost!”

I told him I would likely have to pay the taxes at the border, if I imported it.  Besides, I said, I want to help the country I am in.

He shrugged and wrote up the receipt.  I paid at the cashier and returned for my parcel.

I’ve been using that radio since 1986.  Unfortunately, somewhat like myself, some functions don’t work as they did or should.  At some point the cassette tape player quit.  From experience with other cassette players, I realize that the bands, which move the spindles, wear out.  I replaced the motor and bands in a “boom box” I had, after I spent a lot of time finding the motor, and then taking it to the repairman.  He did the repair, though he said it would likely not last more than a year.  He said I should just buy a new radio/ cassette player.  He was right…

Anyway, the Philips radio can still play AM, FM, MW and short-wave (several bands).  Over time, however, somethings became obsolete.  There are still some AM stations, but they are fewer.  BBC dropped its AM station in NL.  FM still plays fine, though it’s always a trick to get the antenna to stay where it ought to be; it seems to need an infusion of something to stay up; Viagra for antennas?

There are also some Middle Wave (MW) stations, but again they aren’t of interest to me or don’t come in well.  Short-wave radio used to be the only way, besides records LPs / vinyls or cassette tapes to hear a foreign language; in my case Russian while in college.  There still is a Radio Moscow and a Radio Bejiing.  There are some stations from Arabic speaking places, etc.  But short-wave is largely dead due to the innovation of the internet.  Anyone anywhere who has an internet connection (and there’s no government restrictions or “jamming”) can listen to probably every language known to man. 

Still my radio has its place in the house: on the cabinet where we keep our toiletries in the bathroom.  It plays either nice classical music or rock music on some one or other FM station.  I don’t have patience to try to tune in short wave anymore.

Sometimes I feel like my old radio looks, a fossil from another age.  My paint is worn off and some functions don’t work like they should.

But I have my function too.  I do what I can.

I used to think the race was to the swift and the strong.  Now I know that the race is to the dogged and determined.

Pittsburghers like to refer to themselves as Pluggers.  You “plug along”.  I’m not sure of the origin of the phrase, maybe a steam train, the “Little Engine that Could”?

I realize as I get older that it’s not the fantastic things you do that are the most important.  Most intelligent people with determination, will and opportunity can finish a PhD.  It’s an achievement to celebrate, but it’s not the be all and end all of life.

I tell my students every year, several times a year, that I don’t want to hear anyone tell me that they are Spirit-filled. if they do not show Christ-like character in how they treat others.  I don’t think Jesus or Paul cared much about experiences.

Experiences are great and may determine many things for us, like God’s call to mission in our lives.  However, what Paul judges a person by is their character, not their spiritual gifts, particularly not the flashy ones. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control.” Galatians 5:22

The older I get the more I think about how basic machinery lasts longer than dashpots and “brain boxes”.  Old Soviet era cars may not be lovely, but they can be repaired, and they can last twenty years.  The US Space Shuttle program has ended, but the Soviet Soyuz rockets and capsules still go to the International Space Station.

We like flashy, new technology.  We read the latest books.  But sometimes the old model is just what we need for a certain function… and the old Book is the best.

Letter to a friend about living together

Dear Nichole,

It's so sad for Joyce and even for Kevin [that he is involved with another woman and yet says he still has feelings for Joyce].  He seems to think feeling equals loving.  Feeling can be a part of loving, but loving biblically is making a decision to do what is best for the other person.  

Love is putting the other's needs above you own.  With regards to the husband and wife, it means mutual submission. Ephesians 5:21 ought to be the start to the paragraph [about marital relations in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians], not the end of the last paragraph. Ephesians 5:22 [should not] start out as if it is a new thought.  Ephesians 5:22 has no verb.  The verb “submit” is in Ephesians 5:21 and it is assumed as the verb in Ephesians 5:22. So, all people in the church ought to be submitting to each other, and within the marriage the wife is reminded to submit. (In the view of some commentators, since the Fall the woman wants to control and supplant the husband.)  The husband is given a very difficult and really impossible command to love [his wife] as Christ loved the church (agape NT love, not eros Gk desire or "love" or fileo friendship). [Christ] died for the church.  

Synonyms for love are a bit difficult in the Bible, since they are sometimes used synonymously, "’Peter, do you agape me?’ ‘Lord, you know that I fileo you.’"  Repeated twice.  The third time, Jesus asks Peter using files.  Why didn't Peter answer using agapeo  the first two times? Embarrassment? Peter had denied Christ? Perhaps Peter didn't want to admit agapeo? It would have been too hard?

I think Linda's right to a point, if someone doesn't recognize the authority of the Bible, then they won't accept what it says.  On the other hand, you could make what's called a Natural Law argument.  Thomas Aquinas argued that there are certain natural principles or laws in creation.  As God has created the world, there is a certain way things are in the world. [Whether anyone accepts that they exist or have any influence over them doesn’t change that they exist and have influence over them.  At the same time those who resist biblical teaching may be able to see that these Natural Law principles exist when they would be unwilling to accept the Bible.]

Almost all mammals have [pairs of] males and females, and copulate to produce offspring.  There is no reproduction of offspring without pairing. The morphology of mammals as regards sexual organs is amazingly similar. Some animals are even monogamous or monandrous (one wife or one male).  It's true that some mammals like cattle or lions have herds and prides, in which one male has dominance and breeding rights.  However, other like elephants breed for life to one mate.

It seems that God has so designed the world that monogamous or monadrous marriage is the norm for humans.  This would seem to be obvious from millenia of marriage practices across cultures.

In the end, though, young people today are very confused by a non-Christian media industry that has pushed alternative forms of marriage and sexual relationships.  If George cheated on Sally, I bet she'd "kick him to the curb."  I have had students tell me that they know people whose idea of marriage is open marriage, like Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn (or as in the "Friends with benefits" movie).  However, who is going to help you when you're sick, if it's only about sexual satisfaction?  Who will care for you when you're old? [Marriage is mutual concern and caring, i.e. real loving.]

Ordinary marriage is also a civil contract.  Do you share things in common?  Do you need a prenuptial agreement? If you live together, what happens if many years or decades later you split and you own common property like a home?  In many states, there is common law marriage.  If you have lived together long enough, say seven years, you are considered married by the law.  This means your children aren't "illegitimate", i.e. they can inherit property. It also means that the surviving "spouse" can inherit joint assets.

None of this will seem too important until there are children involved or someone is chronically sick or property is involved.  Love is supposed to conquer all.  However, if love is just feelings, they come and go.  "Commitment" - “What I'm lookin' for
Is a love that's forever” as the song goes.

I guess Sally doesn't see the need for any more commitment than George's love and word.  Biblically in the OT it seems that if a man sleeps with a virgin, she is his wife.  She could not marry anyone else. She was "used". (Her hymen would be broken.) In some sense in biblical terms having sex is getting married (if you weren't already; then it would be adultery).

The situation is different now.  No one seems to understand that sex is metaphysical.  It's not just about saying words, which could be said without intent or loveless commitment (no feelings).  When two people join sexually, they become one.  It's something much deeper than a casual contact of genitalia.

Perhaps it's good now that there is no "double standard". i.e. that men may cheat and be sexually active outside of marriage, but women can't.  On the other hand, the open relationships practiced by many or perhaps even most now lead to heart ache and a lot of confusion.  The answer to divorce is not open relationships.  It's more love, more agape. 1 Corinthians 13.

I don't think it does any good to try to force people to listen to you or the Bible or to agree with you.  Your discomfort at their choices is probably louder than their concern for the issue.

We have seen a lot of people live together for a while and then get married.  Some don't, but usually indirect teaching by example and patient love for your spouse says more than words.  We have also seen many couples start to come to church when they have Sunday School aged kids.  Sometimes the parents come to Christ at that time!  Patience in such situations is hard and the question of what to say when is very difficult.  Try to be patient with them and just have fun.  Be yourself in your relationship with Richard [her husband] and vice versa. Pushing them to do what you think it right will probably only meet with a stubborn resistance.

Praying for you all.

Love,

Phil

Plato - The Charioteer

Plato gives many illustrations in his dialogues.  Frequently Socrates gives a word picture to describe some phenomenon or some process.  Most of the time they were obviously not meant to be taken literally, but rather they illustrate something of our human predicament.

The Charioteer is probably one of the most well-known of Socrates’ illustrations.  There are many pictures and sculptures depicting it.

Socrates compares the soul to a charioteer.  The charioteer drives a chariot with a team of two horses.  The two horses are hardly a “pair”.  One horse is white and noble.  The other is dark and unruly. The charioteer has difficulty navigating, because the noble horse tends upwards towards heaven and the unruly one is base and pulls downwards to the earthbound. 

Such is a person’s moral life. We wrestle with ourselves.  We seem to be divided into two.  Part of us strives towards what is noble and part of us strives towards what is base.

This dichotomy within us or moral war is depicted in various ways.  One pop psychology talks of super-ego, ego and id.  Super-ego or the “parent voice” tells us to be good.  The id is the untamed human nature, which is base.  We want to do what we know is not morally allowed. So, we feel the pull.  On the other hand our “white horse” pulls us upwards.

In other places Plato speaks of how humans were formed.  The mind is in a spherical container (the head).  The mind needs a body to get around. Thus, the body is formed.  The body has to have a heart, but the heart is full of passion.  As a result, the lungs are placed near the heart to draw off its heat.

Emotion should not affect reason. So, the neck is narrow and keeps the heat of the heart from reaching the mind.

Far down in the loins are the dark desires.  People must reproduce, but those bits of our equipment are placed as far as possible from the mind.  We don’t want emotion or lust to control us.

The image of the charioteer and the two horses is a similar idea.  The white horse is the part of us that is seeking what is right, true and honorable.  The dark horse is lustful and uncontrollable.

In the longer section of this illustration, which is posted below, the charioteer sees his beloved (or the Beloved).  The noble horse draws back and slows down.  The base horse snorts and paws and rushes forwards.

The noble charioteer pulls back on the reins so hard that the pair of horses fall on their haunches. The unruly horse is angry and tries to go forward, but again the charioteer pulls back on the reins.  In this way, the charioteer tames the unruly horse and develops a harmonious team of horses.

As we make our way through life we try to follow our “upwards” nature.  We strive to be noble. Well, people used to.

These days our culture exalts in excess and allowing free rein to our baser desires.  We are told that they are not base.  However, experience shows that simply giving in to every urge does not lead to happiness or success.

We must struggle with our desires and our passions.  We must use our minds to consider the consequences of our actions before we act.  It is a difficult task and our “unruly horse” makes it all the more difficult.

Socrates makes clear with this illustration that we can succeed in doing what is morally good, but it will take a lot of effort. This picture reminds me to some extent of St. Paul’s comment, “but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.” Romans 7:14

Thankfully for those of us who are Christians we have the indwelling Holy Spirit who helps us in this struggle.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.  Romans 7:24, 25, 8:5, 6

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of the nature of the soul, though her true form be ever a theme of large and more than mortal discourse, let me speak briefly, and in a figure. And let the figure be composite—a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. Now the winged horses and the charioteers of the gods are all of them noble and of noble descent, but those of other races are mixed; the human charioteer drives his in a pair; and one of them is noble and of noble breed, and the other is ignoble and of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble to him. [246a, 246b]

…

   As I said at the beginning of this tale, I divided each soul into three—two horses and a charioteer; and one of the horses was good and the other bad: the division may remain, but I have not yet explained in what the goodness or badness of either consists, and to that I will now proceed. The right-hand horse is upright and cleanly made; he has a lofty neck and an aquiline nose; his colour is white, and his eyes dark; he is a lover of honour and modesty and temperance, and the follower of true glory; he needs no touch of the whip, but is guided by word and admonition only. The other is a crooked lumbering animal, put together anyhow; he has a short thick neck; he is flat-faced and of a dark colour, with grey eyes and blood-red complexion (Or with grey and blood-shot eyes.); the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf, hardly yielding to whip and spur. Now when the charioteer beholds the vision of love, and has his whole soul warmed through sense, and is full of the prickings and ticklings of desire, the obedient steed, then as always under the government of shame, refrains from leaping on the beloved; but the other, heedless of the pricks and of the blows of the whip, plunges and runs away, giving all manner of trouble to his companion and the charioteer, whom he forces to approach the beloved and to remember the joys of love. They at first indignantly oppose him and will not be urged on to do terrible and unlawful deeds; but at last, when he persists in plaguing them, they yield and agree to do as he bids them. And now they are at the spot and behold the flashing beauty of the beloved; which when the charioteer sees, his memory is carried to the true beauty, whom he beholds in company with Modesty like an image placed upon a holy pedestal. He sees her, but he is afraid and falls backwards in adoration, and by his fall is compelled to pull back the reins with such violence as to bring both the steeds on their haunches, the one willing and unresisting, the unruly one very unwilling; and when they have gone back a little, the one is overcome with shame and wonder, and his whole soul is bathed in perspiration; the other, when the pain is over which the bridle and the fall had given him, having with difficulty taken breath, is full of wrath and reproaches, which he heaps upon the charioteer and his fellow-steed, for want of courage and manhood, declaring that they have been false to their agreement and guilty of desertion. Again they refuse, and again he urges them on, and will scarce yield to their prayer that he would wait until another time. When the appointed hour comes, they make as if they had forgotten, and he reminds them, fighting and neighing and dragging them on, until at length he on the same thoughts intent, forces them to draw near again. And when they are near he stoops his head and puts up his tail, and takes the bit in his teeth and pulls shamelessly. Then the charioteer is worse off than ever; he falls back like a racer at the barrier, and with a still more violent wrench drags the bit out of the teeth of the wild steed and covers his abusive tongue and jaws with blood, and forces his legs and haunches to the ground and punishes him sorely. And when this has happened several times and the villain has ceased from his wanton way, he is tamed and humbled, and follows the will of the charioteer, and when he sees the beautiful one he is ready to die of fear. And from that time forward the soul of the lover follows the beloved in modesty and holy fear. [253d – 254e]

Plato, Phaedrus. Trans. By Benjamin Jowett.

Release Date: October 30, 2008 [EBook #1636]
Last Updated: January 15, 2013

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1636

Accessed 26 November 2016

The Wax Tablet

How morally poor choices affect our character and ability to learn is illustrated by Plato in his dialogue the Theaetetus.[1]  In trying to explain how morally poor choices make one increasing unable to make good choices, Socrates compare a person’s mind to a block of wax or a wax tablet.

In ancient Greece teachers and students used wooden boards coated with wax as “chalkboards”. (If a computer specialist can design a program that exists only in hyper space and call it a Black Board, I guess we can be allowed to call the wax tablet a “chalkboard”.)  They used a stylus (not that thing you poke at your iPhone with, but a metal poker or pointed wooden stick) to make letters or drawings in the wax.  When the person finished writing and wished to erase the writing or drawing, they heated a piece of metal and smoothed out the wax.

As the wax got older, it was stiffer and would neither take new images or smooth over again.  At a certain point the wax had to be scraped off and replaced with newer supple wax.

If a student dropped his wax tablet on the ground, and it got covered with grit and dirt, it was impossible to clean. It would not take any new images or if it did, one could not see them.  So, again the wax would have to be scraped off and new soft, supple wax had to be put on the tablet.

Socrates says this is why it’s easier for young people to learn than older people.  Older people have “hardened wax.”  One other factor is that people engage in bad habits: drinking too much, smoking, lying, cheating, etc.  If one consistently does morally bad things, one scatters grit and dirt on one’s “wax”.  The result is that a morally bad person or a person who abuses drink and substances is unable to learn.

We may not be able to keep the “wax” from hardening due to age, but we can certainly avoid the “dung” which is often thrown onto the “wax” by our poor moral choices.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SOCRATES: I would have you imagine, then, that there exists in the mind of man a block of wax, which is of different sizes in different men; harder, moister, and having more or less of purity in one than another, and in some of an intermediate quality.

THEAETETUS: I see.

SOCRATES: Let us say that this tablet is a gift of Memory, the mother of the Muses; and that when we wish to remember anything which we have seen, or heard, or thought in our own minds, we hold the wax to the perceptions and thoughts, and in that material receive the impression of them as from the seal of a ring; and that we remember and know what is imprinted as long as the image lasts; but when the image is effaced, or cannot be taken, then we forget and do not know.”

+++++++++++

SOCRATES: But when the heart of any one is shaggy—a quality which the all-wise poet commends, or muddy and of impure wax, or very soft, or very hard, then there is a corresponding defect in the mind—the soft are good at learning, but apt to forget; and the hard are the reverse; the shaggy and rugged and gritty, or those who have an admixture of earth or dung in their composition, have the impressions indistinct, as also the hard, for there is no depth in them; and the soft too are indistinct, for their impressions are easily confused and effaced. Yet greater is the indistinctness when they are all jostled together in a little soul, which has no room. These are the natures which have false opinion; for when they see or hear or think of anything, they are slow in assigning the right objects to the right impressions—in their stupidity they confuse them, and are apt to see and hear and think amiss—and such men are said to be deceived in their knowledge of objects, and ignorant.

Plato, Theaetetus, Trans. Benjamin Jowett, 431, 432, 443-445

Release Date: November 17, 2008 [EBook #1726] Gutenberg.org

[New York : Modern Library, [1962]]

---

[1] Plato. Theaetetus, 190e5–196c5 (follow the pagination and lineation of E.A.Duke, W.F.Hicken, W.S.M.Nicholl, D.B.Robinson, J.C.G.Strachan, edd., Platonis Opera Tomus I. )

See also http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-theaetetus/  Accessed 7 Nov 2016

What does the 2016 Election mean?

I am from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania was a "swing" state.  That means that if the majority, however, narrow, voted for a candidate, all of the Electoral College votes (20) go to the majority winner.

Trump won the election when he won Wisconsin with 10 Electoral College votes for that state.  He reached 276.  270 Electoral votes is enough to “clinch” the election. After that Hillary could not get the required number of electoral votes to win.  She conceded.

The situation in Pennsylvania reflects the voting throughout much of the US.  Inner city and metropolitan voters chose Hillary.  "Upstate", rural and suburban, voters chose Trump. 

The vote was very close. Trump won PA by 1.3%.  Yet he gets all 20 Electoral College votes.

Nationwide at 0520 EST Trump was ahead only 0.2% in the popular vote (50.1% Trump to 49.9% Clinton), but he had won the election.  These are the rules of engagement.

My view of the results: People are angry and scared.  They are angry about moral failings of Mrs. Clinton.  Many want no more Democratic presidency.

The narrow majority are tired of more taxes.  The narrow majority doesn't want to fund things like nearly free education and Planned Parenthood.

The narrow majority are scared of Muslim immigrants and fears them as terrorists (despite no clear proof for this). The narrow majority is sick of illegal immigration and doesn't want to pay for social services for them.  These people fear losing their jobs to illegal and other immigrants.

This narrow majority feels that America is seen as weak and the foreign policy of the US is a joke.  They want to make America great again. Mr. Trump’s comments seem to portend more of the same: more bombing.

The much of the other half of voters are sick of being kept in poverty. They want a fair chance at education or they want to support minorities and the poor to get education.

The nearly other half want fair pay for fair wages, not to be kept on a black market, which keeps owners free of legal taxation for workers. 

The election was called due to (determined by) the number of Electoral College votes, but the populace is bitterly divided. There is no consensus, and democracy runs on consensus.

President Trump will have to come up with better policies than vague statements, such as calling for ”extreme vetting” of immigrants. The procedure to become a refugee is extremely difficult and lasts more than a year, at least.  Check out the UNHCR site.  After, after you clear UNHCR hurdles as an immigrant, then you have to clear US Immigration.  All of this is done OUTSIDE the US.

Trump will have to do better than call Mexicans rapists and criminals, and think a wall will solve the problem (which he alleges Mexico will pay for). Simply driving out migrant laborers won’t harvest fields or resolve the problems.  Migrants do jobs others won’t.

It's easy to speak vaguely about these things, but to change existing policies and procedures will take acts of Congress and will not be easy.  Simply saying that he will expel all Muslims from the US is not a policy.  No one can take the rights of a citizen away without some overweening reason and evidence.  We don't wish to repeat the injustice we did to Japanese citizens in WWII.

American must be about all Americans, not only those in rural and suburban areas.  It must include everyone, even the inner city dwellers.

Whether Clinton or Trump had won, the country was bitterly divided.  People kept quoting polls showing Clinton ahead (or lately losing ground).  But if you know anything about polls, you must look at the “MoE” category (Margin of Error).  Polls only question a certain number of people in a certain place.  Depending on the number of people questioned, the poll is more or less accurate.  There is always a Margin of Error. 

In the case of this Presidential election the MoE was always something like 4% or 5%.  So, if Clinton was “ahead” by 45% to 42% for Trump, it meant that if the pollsters were wrong, it could be 40% for Clinton and 47% for Trump.

The election returns (votes) show that it is 50.1% (at the moment) for Trump and 49.9% for Clinton.  It is hardly a resounding victory.  It is the narrowest of margins.  The Electoral College procedure exists for this sort of instance, so the vote is clear.  However, almost half of the voters will feel cheated.

In 2000 President George W. Bush won the election on the Electoral College vote, though he lost the popular vote (47.9%) to former Vice President Al Gore (48.4%).  in 2004 President George W. Bush won by 50.7%.  Current Secretary of State John Kerry lost by 48.3%. Bush did slightly better than Trump.  In either case it was a “close shave”.  President George W. Bush was wise to work for consensus and to “reach across the aisle”, i.e. work with the Democrats in Congress.

America needs to pull together.  Even with a Republican Congress, it is no guarantee that President Elect Trump can get anything done in Congress.

Many Republicans refused to endorse him or even spoke against him.  Congress tends to be centrist, which also is explained by the voting.  Even if a district voted for a Republican Congressman or woman, it could be by the narrowest of margins again.

Many nasty and bitter things have been said.  As with all elections there was a lot of posturing, handwaving and mud slinging.

Capitol Hill is going to have to go back to work.   Mr. Trump has promised a lot, for instance to produce jobs for the Rust Belt.  As with most presidents, he won’t be able to keep a lot of his promises.

Let’s hope and pray that he understands how narrow his “mandate” is.  Let’s hope that he learns to take advice from his advisors and that he learns how to work with everyone.  I will certainly pray to that end.