R. Kipling

The neighbor and I had been talking over the fence.  As a result, he brought me Rudyard Kiplings "Just So Stories" and I lent the neighbor the original "Winnie The Poo" as a pledge.

I read almost the entire book, this morning, as well as the Wikipedia entry on the author and some other poems by him, such as "If".   My interest was raised chiefly by G. K. Chesterton who described Kipling as talented but "heretical" (in his book "Heretics", which we have been reviewing.) We see also that opinions on him diverged when looking at comments by T.S. Eliot and George Orwell.  Interesting also was that Kipling was a "Germanophobe" and an enthusiastic Freemason.  He also liked to use the Swastika until Hitler adopted it.  He quite freely engaged in this Germanophobia and even wrote propaganda.  I am thinking that this may have had very serious consequences, especially since he also promoted harsh treatment of Germany at Versailles, which, of course, was disastrous.

I must say that he was very "imaginative"--since Imagination seems to have become The buzz word.  One could even say that Kipling epitomizes it.  I must say, too, that I enjoyed the children's literature.  Here imagination is truly of some good use.  We Can see, however, that he is being deliberately "heretical".  (In adults, I find science fiction and over-powering drama not quite so endearing.  Not my taste.)  This active imagination may have been a mistake in his view of other peoples and cultures and his promotion of war.  The imagination and fiction may not be such a good tool in politics.  I wonder how much serious harm he did.

Maybe I can have a nice chat about it all with the neighbours, now that it is getting warmer and we are beginning to be out and about.

Exciting Weekend / Jasper Banff Icefields Parkway

The weekend was exciting.  We drove to Jasper for convention together and then I drove the Icefields Parkway to Banff by myself and the next day back again to Jasper, by myself.  The check engine light came on just beyond the Columbia Icefields, in the middle of nowhere with no cell reception for another hundred kilometers.  The cruise control quit the moment the check engine light came on.  In the end, apparently, all the trouble was due to the gas cap.-- I did arrive in good shape, though a little ruffled,  for the High School graduation of my God-child, Valedictorian, top of the class.  Great time had by all!





Car trip pictures from the Icefields Parkway:

South of the Columbia Icefield  (taken with the I-Pad)

 Columbia Icefield  at the interpretive center.

Bear Lake, still frozen.

Pulling down the gas-lamp / Chesterton

"For these reasons, and for many more, I for one have come to believe in going back to fundamentals.  Such is the general idea of this book.  I wish to deal with my most distinguished contemporaries, not personally or in a merely literary manner, but in relation to the real body of doctrine which they teach.  I am not concerned with Mr. Rudyard Kipling as a vivid artist or a vigorous personality;  I am concerned with him as a Heretic--that is to say, a man whose view of things has the hardihood to differ from mine.  I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive;  I am concerned with him as a Heretic--that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong.  I revert to the doctrinal methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done.

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down.  A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light.  If Light be in itself good--"  At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down.  All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality.  But as things go on they do not work out so easily.  Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light;  some because they wanted old iron;  some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil.  Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much;  some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery;  some because they wanted to smash something.  And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes.  So, gradually and inevitably, today, tomorrow or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light.  Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark."

(Chesterton.  "Heretics".  Introductory Remarks, last two paragraphs.)
_________________


This would be something like talking about Humpty Dumpty falling of the wall, and how on earth to you put things back together again.  Applebaum talks about this in relation to the post-Soviet era in Eastern Europe.  When you have ruined the institutions, what will you have left and what will you do to rebuild society?  These experiments are very expensive, the damage untold.  Always they begin by isolating people from each other.  Is that the first thing that happens when the light is out?

I am not sure about the doctrinal methods of the thirteenth century.  Luther may have had some problems with those, too.  A Reformation was necessitated quite soon, with the scholastics ready to be thrown outwith their non-sense.  Maybe Chesterton is even engaging in some anti-protestant screed here. The scholastics were not Luther's and the Renaissance's men, nor Anselm, nor Aristotle.  Philosophy is just not the path to freedom in Christ.  We cannot think our way to redemption.  Nevertheless, it makes sense to me to be cautious and not throw out the Light with the lamp-post.  Very simply:  the concepts need to be revealed and Biblical.

(Here, by the way Applebaum writes about the Ukrainian crisis.)

"Atheist Temples"

 

Chesterton would say that atheism and amorality don't build things that are deep or truly beautiful and artistic.

I've hung around some atheistic people.  It can start out nice but it tends to degenerate into insult or debauchery. Even what goes as rational dialogue soon goes south into ad hominems and other fallacies--or straight lies.  They manage to rationalize the rudeness as being necessary to the "process".  "Process" being the holy grail.  But they are the "rational" people--with many books;  so they say.

If there is some beautiful atheist temple somewhere, we'd like to see it.

"Miłosz's 1953 book, The Captive Mind, is a study about how intellectuals behave under a repressive regime. Miłosz observed that those who became dissidents were not necessarily those with the strongest minds, but rather those with the weakest stomachs; the mind can rationalize anything, he said, but the stomach can take only so much."

Ambiguity / Definitions / Chesterton

"And having discovered that opportunism does fail, I have been induced to look at it more largely, and in consequence to see that it must fail.  I perceive that it is far more practical to begin at the beginning and discuss theories.  I see that the men who killed each other about the orthodoxy of the Homoousion were far more sensible than the people who are quarreling about the Education Act.  For the Christian dogmatists were trying to establish a reign of holiness, and trying to get defined, first of all, what was really holy.  But our modern educationists are trying to bring about a religious liberty without attempting to settle what is religion or what is liberty.  If the old priests forced a statement on mankind, at least they previously took some trouble to make it lucid.  It has been left for the modern mobs of Anglicans and Noncoformists to persecute for a doctrine without even stating it."

(Chesterton.  "Hertics".  Introductory Remarks.)

We see that Chesterton is still laboring with the concept and need for definitions.  It would be the theme of the introductory remarks.

Purchased and inscribed 48 children's Bibles from CPH / May long weekend in these parts

Bible story books from here.
Concordia Publishing House kindly did not charge for shipping at this volume purchase.

I-tunes purchase: hymns of Paul Gerhardt

Last night I downloaded this recording from I-tunes.  It cost $9.99.

Paul Gerhardt is hymn-writer of international and permanent importance. We memorized his songs for religion and music class in Germany.

It can also be found at amazon.de where threre are two reviews.  One gives poor marks in a sarcastic vein disparaging it as opium for the people.  Another bemoans  there being only two verses per hymn.  Latter is a decent complaint if you want to really sing the hymn, but for that I also have a hymn book.  I can sing it a capella or accompany myself on piano.

In my opinion, it is very, very lovely, and I am thrilled to have it in my possession.  The voices are great, the arrangements and rhythms are varied and challenging enough for keeping interest.  Sometimes we get magnificent organ playing.

As to Marx, we have seen what Marxists have done with the people.

You can find it in I-tunes store searching for "Paul Gerhardt".


http://www.amazon.de/Die-sch%C3%B6nsten-Chor%C3%A4le-Paul-Gerhardt/dp/B000OGH0QW

Talking about yourself activates feel good regions/ Neuroscience

Talking and thinking about yourself feels good.  Sharing creates a bond, heightens pleasure and promotes learning and teamwork.  Introspection alone is helpful and pleasurable. -- This must be why we blog and go on social media.. 

1. Let people talk about themselves.

People spend 60% of their conversations talking about themselves.

It feels good: Harvard researchers have found that talking about yourself activates the same brain regions as sex, cocaine, and a good meal.

“Activation of this system when discussing the self suggests that self-disclosure like other more traditionally recognized stimuli, may be inherently pleasurable,” Scientific American reports, “and that people may be motivated to talk about themselves more than other topics.”

Research shows that when people disclose information about themselves, they like each other more. It’s also the primary way to form social bonds, or another way of saying it helps earn their respect.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/17/7-ways-to-get-people-to-take-you-and-your-ideas-seriously/

Observational studies of human conversations in relaxed social settings 

suggest that these consist predominantly of exchanges of social informa- 

tion (mostly concerning personal relationships and experiences). Most of 

these exchanges involve information about the speaker or third parties, 

and very few involve critical comments or the soliciting or giving of 

advice. Although a policing function may still be important (e.g., for 

controlling social cheats), it seems that this does not often involve overt 

criticism of other individuals' behavior. The few significant differences 

between the sexes in the proportion of conversation time devoted to 

particular topics are interpreted as reflecting females' concerns with net- 

working and males' concerns with self-display in what amount to a con- 

ventional mating lek. 

http://www.medisch-fitness.com/documents/75procentdagelijksegesprekkenbestedenweaanroddelen.pdf

This experiment left at least one question unanswered, however. Although participants were revealing information about themselves, it was unclear whether or not anyone was paying attention; they were essentially talking without knowing who (if anyone) was on the other end of the line. Thus, the reward- and motivation-related neural responses ostensibly produced by self-disclosure could be produced by the act of disclosure—of revealing information about the self to someone else—but they could also be a result of focusing on the self more generally—whether or not anyone was listening.

In order to distinguish between these two possibilities, the researchers conducted a follow-up experiment. In this experiment, participants were asked to bring a friend or relative of their choosing to the lab with them; these companions were asked to wait in an adjoining room while participants answered questions in a fMRI machine. As in the first study, participants responded to questions about either their own opinions and attitudes or the opinions and attitudes of someone else; unlike in the first study, these participants were explicitly told whether their responses would be “shared” or “private”; shared responses were relayed in real time to each participant’s companion and private responses were never seen by anyone, including the researchers.

In this study, answering questions about the self always resulted in greater activation of neural regions associated with motivation and reward (i.e., NAcc, VTA) than answering questions about others, and answering questions publicly always resulted in greater activation of these areas than answering questions privately.  Importantly, these effects were additive; both talking about the self and talking to someone else were associated with reward, and doing both produced greater activation in reward-related neural regions than doing either separately.

These results suggest that self-disclosure—revealing personal information to others—produces the highest level of activation in neural regions associated with motivation and reward, but that introspection—thinking or talking about the self, in the absence of an audience—also produces a noticeable surge of neural activity in these regions. Talking about the self is intrinsically rewarding, even if no one is listening.

Talking about the self is not at odds with the adaptive functions of communication. Disclosing private information to others can increase interpersonal liking and aid in the formation of new social bonds—outcomes that influence everything from physical survival to subjective happiness. Talking about one’s own thoughts and self-perceptions can lead to personal growth via external feedback. And sharing information gained through personal experiences can lead to performance advantages by enabling teamwork and shared responsibility for memory. Self-disclosure can have positive effects on everything from the most basic of needs—physical survival—to personal growth through enhanced self-knowledge; self-disclosure, like other forms of communication, seems to be adaptive.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-everybody-favorite-topic-themselves/

Plato on his head

There are some things that need to be said. 

One reads things about Plato here and there.  But I've read some Plato for myself.  I have been trained to go to primary source material whenever possible and I am not scared of it. A secondary source can turn everything on its head, and we don't even know it because we are trusting the interpretation.  I usually trust my own mind and have generally found it pretty good.  Wherever I have gone I have received academic awards; and  I like to read and I can read fast.  (So much for bragging.) The more obtuse the stuff, the more easily it is digested in my head.  However, if we try him for ourselves, Plato is not obtuse whatsoever.  He is very easy to read.  Actually, he is a fantastic writer and, for that reason most likely, we still read him.  There is some good wit and as Chesterton would say Plato has broken out with "innovative lectures", though he has also said "many silly things".

Indeed, Plato said some very silly things, such as the advocating of men keeping women and children in common.  (We talked about that a while back.)  You do wonder what he was inhaling, or how loose his own morals were in this regard.  Plato turned his very own fine ethics on the head, there, we must observe. 

Alright, Plato, in my reading was about ethics and justice:  most unhappy are those who are tyrants, gluttons and selfish, indulging themselves and their friends, hoarding up wealth and women.  He tries to show this rationally and by arguing with people.  It does seem somewhat circuitous, and belabored;  Jesus would have been able to clarify the thing with a sermon and several parables. Luther, too:   he straightened out things with several sermons, and the uprising stopped.  Moses would have had a tablet written by the hand of God only a few sentences long.  BUT, Plato being a Greek, and living in a heathen land, and suffering under the vagaries and caprices of the Greek Pantheon,  the gods behaving not much differently from the politicians, really suffered a great handicap. We must give him very much credit for trying to transcend both the messy Greek politics and the messy Greek gods' shenanigans.  He really, really, really does try.  He does it by looking beyond, looking into what is higher both than the politics, the favoritism and the gods' quarreling. He quite strongly advocates censorship to get a grip on the problems in the culture and the myths. (I hardly think our modern so-called Platonists would concur with this call for censorship and government control.)

Nowadays, however, you find that academics want to promote a Plato who is completely beyond the realm of the physical and what's "real".  Their Plato is all words, poetry and rational arguing, nothing but mind and world soul.  He is practically disembodied.  It is as if Plato's concern was not to improve the conditions in the State.  It was.  Christ, of course, is Word incarnate and dwelt among us.  His ethics deal fairly with all things physical as well as spiritual, the spiritual being more important and primary. Everything flows from the fear and love of God as most important. 

My hypothesis is that Plato (or perhaps rather Socrates), through the travels and the wars they were involved with, had contact with the Jewish religion.  There is NO way that important Greeks had heard nothing about it.  NO WAY.  There were only a few more years before they went down and conquered the whole land. In  333 B.C. Alexander fought at Issus.   Plato died in 347 B.C.  That is just 14 years prior!  (Modern education does not deal with dates, though, only patterns and process.  So this is not immediately obvious to those who have not studies this.  I happened to have learned this in grade 7, as we had a history class that actually started in antiquity and worked itself up the centuries in chronological succession.  Thankfully, Wikipedia comes to the culture's rescue.  We have facts at hand, after all.)  I venture to say that Plato got his idea of the higher life from the Jewish faith:  ethics is something other than sycophantism;  the gods can't be these selfish and sexual monsters.  In fact, they are rather ridiculous.  Surely the Divine is something else!  It MUST be.  To be good, to be just, is something other than what we see in the world and what we see in the myths about the gods.  The Greek gods are not just.  The heathen world was becoming ripe for the Christian message.  Plato's call for a King also echoes the stories about King David and the Messiah, in my mind. 

When I first came from Germany, I had a Social Studies teacher in grade 11, who fancied himself something of a Socratic dialectitian.  He also was imbued with a particular interpretation of Socrates, now that I think about it.  He tried to tell us, and we hear this still, that Christ is some sort of poster boy for the Greek ideal.  That the Greeks had the right idea much before the time--as if there had not been thousands of years of Judaism, scripture, temple worship, awaiting of the Messiah, the King, son of David.  The priority of Socrates over Christ is surely utter nonsense.  If there was an ethical ideal, and a message about God and his nature, it was there first in the Jews.  

Here is an idea that keeps getting put on its head all the time, too.  The Hebrew God is actually not nice.  He is really horrible. So much for ethics.  God has no ethics. --  "God was so terrible, how could he..."  How could he ask Abraham to kill is how son?-- griped a friend on FB, this weekend. -- It falls to housewives and teachers of little children, like me, to explain to grown men and professors that they have no clue.  (There is something else put on its head.)  It is so simple if you have a reading of the scriptures and history, but many limit themselves to some quoting mechanism, avoiding primary sources, again.  

Abraham lived in a time of immoral inhumanity.  The surrounding people, cultures, and barbarians of all times have offered sacrifice of their children and behaved in cruel ways.  But the God of Abraham substitutes a Lamb, and Himself in Christ, foreshadowed by the animal.   On the other hand, we see debased behavior in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah;  we see it in accounts where other cultures offer their own children as sacrifices to the gods.  Come to think of it, even the elevated Greeks offered their children to the gods.  Remember the Greek Agamemnon and Iphigeneia.   The mess of Agamemnon's life reminds one of the mess of Herod the Great's life, murdering their own families.  But Iphigeneia was properly sacrificed so Agamemnon could have his wish, i.e. a manipulation of the gods and the affairs of the world.  Do we hear about this?  No.  But Abraham who was not actually required to sacrifice a son, gets the great spot light put on. --  So, the fact is that in Jewish faith, ethics and the law were paramount all in relation to the living God, Creator and King of the universe.  The Greeks served their little tyrannical gods, kings of lightening and woods and whatever little sphere of the created world.  No wonder Plato was not in favor.  Time for these gods to move aside. 

It is preposterous to say that Judeo-Christianity was indebted to Greek thought.  

It is also preposterous to now make Judeo-Christianity ethics something inferior to Platonic higher thinking or thinking out of the cave, or out of the box...   Plato tried to rationally approach an ideal without the benefit of Revelation.  He got some things right and some important things wrong.  In the end he fell into many self-serving edicts according to his own tastes, also, coming up with some good stuff and with many "silly things". 

This supposed aligning oneself with Plato is just a bunch of hogwash.  It is simply a doing away with Christ and calling oneself more elevated and logical, in a self-flattering way and indulgence in pride and arrogance.  I am afraid that God will not leave it unpunished.  They should know better. I am depressed to think about it and how many are led astray.   Would God be immoral if he slew the whole lot of us for our immorality and baby killing? 

On top of this, they try to have a type of muddled thinking stand for Socratic dialectic.  It is an insult to Socrates and Plato.  See this sample of modern thought of university graduates--another turning things up on its head.  

Preschool Unit: Vocations in the Family / Vocation of being a Child

This is a bulletin board I made with the children.  They painted all the flowers, of course.  It was a nice display also for Mother's Day Tea.

We enjoyed the new book on the vocation of being a child by Mary Moerbe and Gene Veith.
I would suggest that every family would profit from owning it.

http://www.cph.org/p-23250-how-can-i-help-gods-calling-for-kids.aspx

What makes a high quality preschool? -- and church?

Copied from this website: 

Adult-child interactions which are responsive, affectionate and respectful;

Highly qualified and experienced professional educators.

Staff-to-child ratios which allow staff to interact with children.

Effective intentional curriculum that involves active engagement with children.

Space for children to have nurturing and emotionally supportive relationships with early childhood staff;

An integration between care and education;

Promotion of early literacy and math skills;

Responsiveness to cultural diversity;

High standards of safety and child protection;

An atmosphere that fosters social, emotional and regulatory skills.

… but mostly, a high quality preschool is one where families, children and visitors feel welcome and valued.

Some of this, you might say, also applies to churches:  hospitality, intentionality, active engagement, literacy and responsiveness are qualities that need careful attention and cultivating. 

Spring 2014 / "One in Christ" Preschool curriculum endorsement, CPH

Outside, there are some leaves wanting to come out, now--ever so tentatively.  The Mother's Day glory of leafing out trees did not materialize this year due to cool temperatures.  At least the afternoon was warm enough to sit out, soak up a little sun while revving up the BarBQ with the family.  It was nice enough to be very grateful and happy.





(I'm joking.  It wasn't like the picture.)

I can give thanks that I've had a good winter with paid employment, volunteer involvement and trying out new exercises, (though I did complain about the Yoga, the other day).

Leading the Seniors Community Choir has been a very great joy.  Conducting is the most fun I have ever had, in terms of work or music.  I have learned so many songs which are the Seniors' favorites, but brand new to me.  Teaching Preschool is also fun, though busy and sometimes draining.  You are forever knee-deep in beautiful books and stories, in props and sound effects, and craft material, continually gazing into the cute, fresh faces, though regularly some with running noses.  Both activities have been a great excuse to keep buying books and toys.  The downside is that my little house really is now fully stuffed to the rafters.  It looks like it is time for a garage sale of all the items I have not used since we moved here.

While talking about this, I would recommend this one resource, however, for Preschool teaching. It was an excellent purchase.  It is a new series from Concordia Publishing House (2013).  Series A is for younger Preschoolers and Series B is for older Preschoolers.  The books are laid out wonderfully survey-able with color-coding on colored pages, well illustrated and completely current in theory.  If I could have made only one purchase, I would have gone to the Concordia Series.  The information is linked below.

The ideas are well grouped under themes and Bible stories and work well.  This saves much time and headache and adds variety to the planning.  Top marks in my books for this One in Christ series. If you do not have much background, you can just purchase this and get going.  Of course, nowadays, we also have the internet, which is a fantastic help.

https://www.cph.org/t-topic-OneinChrist-PreB.aspx