What Once Was Lost...

No, this is not a post on LOST. (Honestly, I'm not all too sure what to say about that show.) This is to let all of you who have been concerned--which means ALL of you, right?--that I found my Green Bay fleece cap. Rejoice away, me droogies.

Animal Farm At The Garage

I took my car to get an oil change and tire rotation/balance early this morning. What do I find at the neighborhood garage? Grease monkeys, a dachshund, and a crow. The grease monkeys and the dachshund (named Peanut) I knew about, but the crow caught me off guard. He hopped up on the row of chairs outside the garage office where I was preparing for my morning lecture, getting more and more interested in what was in my briefcase in the chair next to me. Every time I would open the briefcase, he'd hop over to see if I had any food in there. At least that's what I thought he was looking for, especially when he started chomping on the shiny metal clasp that holds the shoulder strap in place. I'm just glad he didn't hop on me, or there would've been trouble for sure.

Family Beach Pics, Part One

Well, it's been two weeks since our family vacation at Sandestin, but I suppose that late pics are better than none at all, right? Perhaps. You be the judge.




That little Nathan doesn't stop wiggling for a second. Here's a nice blurry action shot for effect.











Mom and Caleb enjoying some ice cream












Dad, mom, and Caleb taking a break in the condo.












That's my boy!

**Note: No alcohol was consumed by the model before, during, or after the taking of this photograph












Now that Nathan (my littlest nephew) is one cool kid! Takes after his uncle Bryan, he does.












My silly parents! So this is where I get it from...

Actually, I was the one who put them up to it. But, then, you probably already knew that.













Okay, so I wasn't REALLY going to throw Nathan away. But it's a funny pic anyway (at least to my warped sense of humor).










The nephews at the early morning breakfast gathering. Colin and I made our signature breakfast every morning: eggs (any way you like 'em), grits, sausage, toast, and some of my strong coffee. (But I took it a little easy on my poor parents and weakened it up a bit.) You know, paper towels work really well as coffee filters...











Caleb at the playground on an overcast, cool day. The playground was strewn with chewed up tires--which, of course, mom had to take a sample of for "educational" purposes, being the star teacher that she is.

Vernon, Florida

If you've not yet seen the 1982 documentary Vernon, Florida, you need to. It chronicles several eccentric characters from...you guessed it...the small panhandle town of Vernon, Florida. Really quite hilarious. I definitely need to watch it again and memorize some of the priceless things those guys say. I stopped by there on the way down (it was raining) and back (nice and sunny) from our family vacation in Destin last week (hopefully pics of the vacation will be here forthwith). My personal favorite: the Vernon Historical Society, Inc building.

No windows. The two garage doors you see above (complete with a rotting fire hose piled in front). I think there was a door on the side, but a couple of young turks at the Dixie Dandy across the street were looking like they were bored on the Sunday afternoon, perhaps wanting to have some fun with this picture-grabbing tourist type (that being yours truly), so not wanting to cause a ruckus I grabbed my picture without doing any more investigating.

Oh, and don't forget about Vernon's smok'n butts...

The blue blood of my laundry detergent was spilled in the Kroger parking lot this morning. I accidentally backed over it in my car. When are those plastic detergent bottles going to learn to get out of the way--or at least to say something?

Birthday Shock And Awe

I do not deserve this woman. But, then, we don't deserve the best things we get, do we? Yesterday was my birthday, spent with dear loved ones at the Johnsons' on a beautiful Lord's Day and kegging 30+ gallons of the Lord's bounty: our IPA. The Johnson kids treated me to a birthday song serenade for lunch, some thoughtful homemade drawings, and even a birthday dance! But today was the real birthday treat.

All I knew was that Kathryn had something planned for us for the day. Little did I know how much of a treat it would really be. From the directions I received concerning the appropriate clothing I was to wear for the first part of the day, I gathered we would do some hiking. I had thought before today how nice it would be for us to do some hiking at some point, and the first place that came to mind was one of the nicer hikes that Thomas, Oren, and I had gone on: Blood Mountain, in northeast Georgia. Well, guess where Kathryn had planned us to hike? Yep, Blood Mountain! Unbelievable. I like hiking with Thomas and Oren, there is no doubt, but it's more fun to hold hands with Kathryn. :)

Taking a little break. Almost to the top...

Made it to the top. This picture was taken by some guys from Mississippi State University, my alma mater, on their spring break. They were on their first day of five on the AT and already having thoughts of turning back at their first steep climb. They've got a long four days ahead of them...

Doing a little relaxing and enjoying the wonderful view at our feet.

But, of course, the day wasn't over. We were going to dinner, which would possibly include being outside (hint, hint). My first thought was Caliente Cab, a now-shut-down Cuban place that had great food and a great atmosphere. Well, guess where we were going? Calientito's, the Cuban place that the owners of Caliente Cab opened up close to Kathryn's. Unbelievable (again). Just like their previous restaurant, they have great outdoor seating, and as we were walking up to the restaurant, I spotted Thomas and Oren sitting at a far away table. Hmm, I thought, that's a coincidence. Then, at the same table, I spotted some others who probably wouldn't normally be sitting at the same table: Mike and Latetia (and kids) and Ashlie. What's going on here? Oh! This is part of the birthday surprise! Shock and awe. It didn't register at first, I was so surprised, but it gradually sunk in how special this was. And how special this girl was who was sitting next to me (that would be Kathryn, for those who didn't see who was sitting next to me). There were some who couldn't make it, but no matter--it was as fine of a birthday dinner as I've had in a while and the conclusion of some very thoughtful planning!

The Calientito's group

All in all, a wonderful day, indeed. Unfortunately, it had to end at some time, so here is a parting pic from the end of the evening...

LOST 3x11 "Enter 77"

LOCKE'S BLIND FAITH

Locke is back, continuing once again to put his seemingly blind trust and faith in the island, to give himself over to the island. He does not fear the unknown of the island, content to spend two days following a compass course that he divines from Ecko's Jesus stick. "LIFT UP YOUR EYES AND LOOK NORTH John 3:05." I was so intent in previous posts to pay attention to the content of the Bible verses that I completely missed its possible significance from Locke's perspective. He wouldn't have been concerned about the content of the verse at all. He wouldn't have been concerned about what it meant to Ecko, nor would he likely have understood that meaning. He (obvious to me now) saw something like, "Look north, John, at 305 degrees." It's meaning to Locke is just that: it's meaning to Locke, stripped of whatever other other meanings it would have either in the context of the Bible itself or in the context of Ecko's scratching it on a stick. The "LIFT UP YOUR EYES AND LOOK NORTH" is a tidbit from another verse scratched on the stick (Genesis 13:14) and isn't even related to John 3:5. But for Locke, it is related--that is it's only relation. In retrospect, though, it makes sense that the writers intended "John 3:05" to be out of context--that's not how Bible verses are written, no "0" is stuck before the five like that. That was an an anomaly that I overlooked before because I had no idea of it's meaning for the show. That anomaly has been discharged: it lead them to the Flame station.

Sayid is understandably put out by it, wanting to have a "rational conversation" about what he heck they're doing tramping through the jungle. But although Locke's faith in the island is blind, it led to definite results: finding the Flame station, mention of yet another group--the "hostiles," lots and lots of notebooks on Dharma, and, of course, C4 explosive. Locke's blind faith led him to have the latter explosive blow up the station and the information. Dang it! I want to know what's in those notebooks. Bad. Real bad.

THE FLAME AND THE BARRACKS

If the Flame station really is a hub of communications and power supply (as Sayid's map indicates), then the "barracks" won't have any power going to it. But what are "the barracks"? Is that the Others' village? Hopefully we'll find out.

We have now been introduced to all of the named stations on the blast door map: Swan, Pearl, Staff, Flame, and Arrow. There is another hatch on the map that isn't named. And there is the station on the other Alcatraz-island. The map mentions "Dharmatel" cabling for "intranet" connections, for which the Flame station seems to be the hub. But then it also mentions several system-wide failures of the intranet and a complete shutdown of it. Maybe Mikhail was right that the communications (in that sense) hadn't been working for a while.

THE HOSTILES

Crud, now we've got another group to deal with. The question is whether this group is actually a reference to an existing group we know about. I don't think so, but the evidence isn't exactly clear. The Hostiles could be the Others, especially since there was talk about "a group of scientists" coming in to deal out a "purge" and the Others seem to be (or at least include) scientists of a sort. But then the Other-woman-at-the-dock was in cahoots with Mikhail, which means either the Hostiles aren't the Others or that woman-at-the-dock was not really an Other after all but perhaps some sort of plant or spy, which doesn't seem all that likely to me.

It should be remembered that Mikhail's first mention of the "purge" was in the context of his being "the last surviving member" of the DI. That was a lie, but he claimed that everything else he said was true. Well, dadgummit, what counts as "everything else"? The purge? If he's not part of the original DI, then is he an Other? If so, then the Hostiles can't be the Others, unless (yet another "unless"!) the Hostiles are a faction that broke off from the Others or were a group that the Others came to replace or who knows what other possibility.

Here is a transcription of the conversation between Klugh and Mikhail (supposedly translated by some Russian fans):

Mrs. Klugh: Mikhail, you know what to do.
Patchy: ...Do we have a chance?
Klugh: We can't risk it... you know the circumstances.
Patchy: ... there IS another way..
Klugh: You know what to do, that is an order.
Patchy: We've GOT ANOTHER WAY!
Klugh: Do it Mikhail!
Patchy: I AM SORRY! (Shoots Klugh)

Klugh orders Mikhail to shoot her--suggests a definite chain of command. They were obviously prepared for a situation like this: "You know what to do." What is the "other way" Mikhail was talking about? Why would Klugh sacrifice her own life? What is of such great importance that no one be allowed to find out about it?

Could the Hostiles be people who were on the island before the DI got there? Think the four-toed statue kind of civilization of Hostiles here. It would be consistent with the dude-on-the-orientation-films talking about the Hostiles and the films' (presumably) being so old. (Which is why I'm not really considering the LOSTies as the Hostiles.) But, then, the Hostiles wouldn't be a "group of scientists" that supposedly came in to commit the purge. Things to keep in mind.

One thing that gets me is why the Flame station was loaded with explosives in case of the Hostiles. Whoever they are, DI obviously did not want them to get their hands on whatever was in the station.

Seizure Of My Funds

Back in my online gambling days...

My, my, this is turning out to be a juicy post, no? Seizure of funds, online gambling. What twisted, sad-ending story will I tell? Fortunately, there is none to tell. Well, it's not too sad, anyway. The past couple of years I dabbled in a bit of very-low-stakes online poker, much like the rest of the world, it seemed. Lost a little. Won a little. Ended up in the black, but not by much, which shows that I'm no gambler--or at least not a very good one. I had about $300 in a Neteller* account from my winnings, and when U.S. legislators decided to clamp down on online gambling, I decided it was time to take my money and run. It'd been a good time, but the fun is over.

Well, guess what? Business and criminal charges were brought against two of Neteller's founders (see this press release), and now their U.S. customer's funds have been seized until they can figure out what's going on. In the meantime, U.S. customers can't withdraw their cash. Dang it. I suppose that's what I get for gambling. :) Maybe I'll get it back one of these days.

*An online money transfer business

Kathryn and I finally had an entire evening together last night--at least since we've been seeing-each-other. I cooked up some fried okra (one of her favorites) and homemade mac & cheese, and for dessert I made some strawberry-banana jello with chunks of mango in it. Yummy! I forced upon her a bit of MST3K for after dinner entertainment, a hilarious short film from the late '50s or early '60s called "Are You Ready For Marriage?" Not that we're even talking about that at this point or anything; it's just really funny how that old film describes relationships--and, of course, the MST guys are absolutely hysterical in it. "Never make light of the 'Boing,' son." Indeed.

I had to calculate how long it's been since we've been seeing-each-other. It seems longer than nearly three weeks. I couldn't even remember when I had first asked her out last year; turns out it was a year ago this week (or thereabouts). Looks like I'll be one of those guys who forgets stuff like that. Oh, well.

My Spring Break as begun! And my birthday is tomorrow. 36 years old. Getting some gray hairs. The ol' mid-life questions are creeping up on me: "What do I have to show for my life?", "What mark have I made on the world?", etc. Questions that guys ask themselves, anyway. We are a prideful bunch, desirous, envious, and covetous of recognition, fame, and glory. That's probably why I want to see 300, the story of a small band of Spartans (and soldiers from other Greek city-states) holding off an entire Persian army, going down in a shining blaze of glory. And, of course, to see Frank Miller's amazing cinematic effects. I just have to be careful not to answer these questions according to worldly standards--if I did, I'd just get depressed. But our vision is an eternal one. Our Lord went down in shame and rose again in a shining blaze of glory, and we have a share in that.

I can now say that my work has been read in a University of Chicago grad seminar.

A former student here at UGA, Sonam, is at U Chicago doing grad work, and they've been reading some goodies by and about John McDowell, a philosopher who I dealt with at some length in my dissertation and who was the subject of my (only) published article. A few weeks ago, Sonam asked for a copy of the article, which I was only too glad to send along. But I didn't think it would make it to his seminar class.

My dissertation advisor, who was also Sonam's undergrad advisor, just told me today that Sonam made a suggestion to his professor that they read my article, which they then spent a week discussing. The U Chicago professor's assessment? It was the clearest thing they had read all semester! Granted, I don't know what they read up to that point, and the semester is only a little more than half over, but it made me feel good about my work, anyway. Heck, I'll take whatever small praise that I can get at this point. Perhaps there is hope for me yet.

Now all I have to do is get McDowell himself to pass off on it, and I'm good! But in order to do that, I first need to send him a copy. Will I have the huevos to do it? We'll see...

Berkeley and Orthodoxy

Berkeley is (in)famous for his ontological pronouncements that all that exist are minds and their ideas, that esse est percipi ("to be is to be perceived"), and that material objects do not exist unperceived. All of this sounds rather unrealistic (for a number of different senses of "realism") and even seems to go against what scripture presupposes about reality. The idea here is that insofar as God created the world, independently of Himself and of us, he conferred upon it an independent reality capable of subsisting apart from any mind's perception of it (or, at least, apart from any finite mind's perception of it). If this is so, if this is the proper metaphysical reading of God's creation, then Berkeley is theologically unorthodox in his philosophy.

Yet Berkeley (who became a bishop in the Anglican church later in life) was quite serious about being theologically orthodox. He wanted to give God a central, providential role to play in his philosophy and argued that his philosophy was completely consistent with the teaching of scripture. James Spiegel, in his essay "The Theological Orthodoxy of Berkeley's Immaterialism," argues not only that Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy is consistent with scripture ("the consistency thesis"), but that there is reason to think that it is endorsed by scripture ("the endorsement thesis"). Spiegel considers several objections to the consistency thesis and respective Berkeleyan replies. Here are some highlights.

1) Objection: Commonsense realism is the view adopted by and presupposed by scripture--the view that objects are self-subsistent, that they exist even while unperceived. There could be a number of replies that Berkeley could make here.

First, the objection focuses on the actual existence and subsistence of objects, whereas the "to be" in Berkeley's esse est percipi focuses on the essence of objects--it is of the object's essence that it be perceived. What this does for Berkeley is to take the focus away from the actual and current perception of the object and place the focus on the perceptable nature of the object. For instance, if I leave my desk and walk outside, is my desk still there in the room when I am not perceiving it? Yes, says Berkeley, because it is the case that if I were in my room then I would be perceiving my desk. I need not be currently perceiving the desk in order to say that it subsists; I need only say that it is perceivable, that its essence is to be perceived (whether currently or at some other time).

Second, Berkeley claims that scripture is really neutral on the question of whether or not objects continue to exist unperceived. We might think that it presupposes the existence of a Lockean material substance (the "supposed I know not what" of Locke's that "stands under" an objects properties and that continues to exist even while unperceived--in fact, Lockean material substance is imperceivable), but we're imposing this interpretation upon scripture, not getting it from scripture.

Third, the objection supposes that not only is realism (with its corresponding notion, in Berkeley's mind, of Lockean material substance) the commonsense position, but also that scripture is in line with common sense and Berkeley's immaterialism is not in line with common sense. The latter claim seems substantiated, where commonsensical means what is likely to be accepted by the Average Joe. Berkeley’s immaterialism is rather esoteric, and nearly everyone, when faced with Berkeley’s philosophy, is reticent to accept it. In reply, Spiegel makes an interesting point: Even if realism/materialism has common sense on its side, common sense is not necessarily on scripture’s side. There are plenty of things that happen in scripture that go against what the Average Joe is willing to accept as true, what is reflective of reality, and what is non-paradoxical. “Immaterialism, as it turns out, just might be one of the many non-commonsensical doctrines which is either allowed by or, as I shall suggest, actually recommended by the scriptures” (221).

2) A point Berkeley makes in regards to creation by God is that God’s use of material substance in creating the world would be superfluous. Will, for Berkeley, is the power to produce ideas. Creation is perfectly explicable in terms of God’s will without the need for material substance. In fact, the primacy of material substance would make God’s will superfluous, which Berkeley thinks would open the door for atheism. If at any point in the game we cease to rely completely on God, in this case not only for creating the world but also for continuously and providentially upholding the world by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3), then we leave open the possibility of the atheist to deny the need for God's continuing providential control since the world is perfectly able to continue on its own apart from Him (or from us).

This is part of Spiegel's defense of the endorsement thesis, and I rather like it. It makes God out to be the providential Creator and Sustainer of the world, giving Him an absolutely central place in Berkeley's philosophy. Note this nice passage from Berkeley:

This visual language proves, not a creator merely, but a provident governor, actually and intimately present, and attentive to all our interests and motions, who watches over our conduct, and takes care of our minutest actions and designs throughout the whole course of our lives, informing, admonishing, and directing incessantly, in a most evident and sensible manner. (from Alciphron: Or the Minute Philosopher (part IV, section 14))

At the end of the article, as another part of his defense of the endorsement thesis, Spiegel turns to the concept of our being divine image bearers and goes on to suggest a number of interesting analogies between divine creation and human speech. I will not recount them here. Perhaps I will find time in a day or so. In the meantime, Spiegel at least gives us some good food for thought regarding how we could view Berkeley's weird philosophy as actually being theologically orthodox.

Classroom Community

I've really been enjoying my two upper level classes this semester. Most of the students in there are ones I've had before, so they're familiar with me and how I hold court in the classroom, which helps to create the familiar kind of atmosphere that I like. Lately I've been thinking of the classroom as a sort of community within which learning and inquiry takes place, a community wherein everyone together is inquiring after the subject matter, discussing it with one another, challenging one another. Many of the students have been in other courses together (both mine and other professors' courses), which often leads to their challenging one another and seeking understanding from one another apart from my interaction. I love that.

The idea of community also, and necessarily, involves a certain atmosphere of interaction, a special kind of context within which interaction takes place. Depending on the community in view, this atmosphere can be good or bad, it can be positive or negative, it can be a place where people want to be or a place where they don't want to be. I hope that my classroom is a place where people want to be, where they feel comfortable enough to engage with me and with one another. I suspect that this is the case. Regardless, as a teacher, I think that it is pedagogically important to keep in mind this aspect of the classroom. It seems to be just as important a part of the learning process as the subject matter--it helps to set the tone for discussion and engagement, provides a suitable context within which ideas can flow freely and be challenged without fear of looking stupid.

All in all, it's been a good time, as difficult as it is sometimes to be prepared in terms of subject matter for the lectures. But with a stable context of community in place, it makes being unprepared much easier to deal with.