the most beautiful eulogy

“...we have lost our poor little boy, our pet and our hope. You knew him well, and know his mother’s heart and mine were wrapped up in him, will understand how great is our affliction. He was attacked with a bad form of scarlet fever on Thursday night, and on Sunday night effusion of the brain set in suddenly and carried him off in a couple of hours... as the little fellow was our greatest joy, so is the recollection of him an enduring consolation. It is a heavy payment, but I would buy the four years of him again at the same price.”

(Thomas Huxley writing to philosopher Herbert Spencer on the death of his son in 1860... )

These men were both respected and very busy scientists who’s contribution to geology and evolutionary theory permeates the university lectures halls of today. Time was against them, yet out of the most hurried schedule came such beautiful words...

Strange isn’t it? To think that this is how friends would talk to each other only 140 years ago. Pen. Paper. Emotion. Intent.
Where would I ever find such an interchange between two friends (two male friends for that matter!) in today’s world of hurried correspondence and ‘deadline driven action’.

What a eulogy... Perhaps a symbol of the death of something more.

thought

the things that i most regret are things that i have done without thinking...

the things that i least regret are also things that i have done without thinking...

interesting.

anxious

toss on the bed
convincing myself that it's alright
unconvincingly

look at the clock
time is elapsing
unused time
not sleeping not working
waste with no option to recycle

awake
but not enough to be useful
fluctuations between feeling on top
and feeling squashed

asleep
but not quite
so close to worry that
closed eyes keep me lingering

toss on the bed
daylight has come slowly

listen

it is a scary thought to think that i need to be entertained in order to hear... what are the most entertaining things saying to me?

gazing

and like a child i’m gazing
into wondrous love
taking me to places
that my heart is dreaming of

-- future of forestry --

evaluating philosophy

This is a 4 point basic framework that you could find helpful if your mind likes to think philosophically sometimes. I have adapted it quite a bit out of a book called “On Human Nature” (Wall, 2005)

For any philosophy (about any aspect of reality) to have credibility it must consist of:

1. Reasoned Judgments

In a philosophical world there are not too many facts, and thus speculation is necessary. There is a danger, however, in the absence of clear facts, to see people’s point of view on reality (philosophy I dare say) as being a personal taste issue. Philosophy cannot be seen to be a mere collection of opinion as they provide evidence to support their various claims, evidence that is factual, certain inferences that are based on these facts, and interpretations that must be reasonable. It is possible to have an unreasonable collection of opinion, but not a philosophy.

2. Universality

If a theory is going to hold then it needs to account for all the facts involved. In other words, one theory is better than another if it better explains MORE of the facts. So quantity of the coverage is the key element here. If one theory is able to explain ALL the facts then philosophers will call this theory ‘universal’. The is no recourse from a universal theory. There can be no rebuttal, only another angle (if the other angle is able to equally cover all the same facts as the former theory).

3. Consistency

Consistency implies that the content of the theory contains no contradictions or internal flaws. It also implies that the theory, as a whole, should be consistent with the known facts of the universe and with generally accepted theories. Quite simply, one theory can be said to be better than another if it is more consistent. This is where I find the conflict of interest between spirituality and science most prevalent. Quite simply, Christians (I will write about them because I am one), look to God as the source, and thus a theory is consistent if it logically explains the nature and role of God at work in the world, and in a way that Christians would find both internally and externally consistent. However, science, as a faculty, does not accept the use of spiritual explanations to explain the unknown. It is not measurable, it is not testable, it is not experiment-able. It is not consistent to science. Which makes me wonder the question: “How can you find something that you are looking for if you refuse to look in all the places that it could be?” But that is a deep question... Let’s move on...

4. Simplicity

This is often used as the last benchmark to decide on preference of theories: If two theories are equally Universal and equally Reasonable, and equally Consistent, then preference is usually given to the simpler of the two. Science has a beautiful word for this. It is called “Elegance”. (here’s a cool article on it if you are interested... ) Makes you think of modeling doesn’t it? No? Just me? OK... This point is not complex. It is simply that if one theory can explain the same phenomenon making use of fewer explanations then it is to be held as the better one. I like this point on a personal level... I like it because of what I believe in: The Gospel of Christ is simple. Man needed redemption and God made a plan.

So, I really didn’t mean this blog to be a gospel presentation (if I did, it would have been a poor show anyway), but I wanted to provide some sort of qualitative framework which any person could use to evaluate and extrapolate life theories. Hope you find it useful...

God and Music

i got thinking tonight about just how much the concept of MUSIC features within the Word of God, and in the culture of the Israelites. I can hardly get very far in my reading of the Old Testament before I encounter some reference to music, or the use of music within the religious activities of the time. And i guess I figured out for the first time tonight that God must really LOVE music. And I’m not really even meaning worship, (i don’t want to get into that). I’m simply talking about the making of sounds that sound nice together.

I don’t have any scriptures to back that up, it’s just my thought direction...

Perhaps me getting this understanding was so slow due to the fact that there is very little mention of Jesus being anything of a musical type and so because most of my concept of God is derived from New Testament passages, I guess I have just never realised God’s passion for music. There is the one time that Jesus sang... in Mark 14 vs 26. I wonder what he sounded like... man, i would have loved to have listened to God singing. But in general, we don’t see Jesus and a musical type at all... and there is a good chance that he was not- otherwise it might have some up more in scripture.

Anyway, that tangent aside- I truly believe that God enjoys music. That he enjoys it. That he enjoys me when I am enjoying another aspect of his creation- namely music.