I can die happy just reading along here… In fact, I suspect my demise of mirth may be in the past tense, but I find myself still lurking in some kind of delirious fog.
I really should try to shake myself out of it and get along to see Waiting for Godot in it’s last week down in Londinium.
I'd like to learn from you about more spiritually and intellectually significant matters. I understand and share the general pessimism about the state of humanity, but why not stare at it and discuss it? How do you think the world is faring, what do you think about the place and future of democracy, of the economy, of relations between countries, of the international system? What do you think about the state and dynamics of Christianity, institutionally, intellectually, spiritually? Have your ideas on theodicy evolved since The Doors of the Sea? What do you think about education in the age of AI? If you were to write a accessible book to educate the young, what would it be?
All these matters have been and will be addressed here. But these little filler pieces between the proper articles have their place in the great scheme of things as well. Christmas is coming.
Did my observations on civilization in the Valéry article not touch upon one or two of your concerns?
Look, you little worm--ahem, I mean, mon cher neveu, darling boy, dewdrop--keep a civil tongue in your head. Put a lid on the obscenity too. I know things about you it would be devastating to you for me to divulge.
What do you think about education in the age of AI, eh? You’ve beat about the bush on that one for too long if you ask me. Have you any notion of the havoc this Chatbot or whoever he is when he’s at home is wreaking on our most delicate institutions, those whose sacred task is nothing less than the cultivation of the human mind? Eh? Eh? Oh thank you, dear, just put the pot down anywhere, and what have I done with the milk, dear me …
“Little filler pieces”?! I thought this was the main course. My only complaint is that you are not providing the regular updates on the state of the fairy kingdom which you promised some time ago. However, I would put this down to your natural fear of getting abducted for revealing too much.
Dianelos, just want to say I typed out my reply before DBH commented, and only after submitting did I see his comment—Yes DBH confirmed that some of the matters have been addressed, so I hope the last part of my reply is somewhat accurate (as I was simply recalling from familiarity/memory). Also only after submitting did I realize how much I had typed, my sincerest apologies there, I always try my best to make things as concise as possible but I'm neither a great writer/thinker (in the sense that I have to always revise what I had initially thought out/wrote, writing isn't really my strong suite at all I'd say), and time flies whenever I'm focused on something, I didn't even realize how much time has gone by in my writing of the reply to you Haha Oops. Much love though, my friend, and God Bless you, Take Heart For God is Good! 💙🙏🙌
Dianelos reading your comment it resonates with me deeply, as I share/understand your sentiment, But on the same token, if I may share too: God is present in everything, and so a Christian must be a Poet(Paraphrasing From St. Porphyrios). What I mean is that every matter holds intellectual and spiritual significance.
My Two cents is that there is nothing more spiritually and intellectually significant than Love. If this is true as I believe the Bible teaches, this ought to be our main focus in everything. Regarding such, I found this post helpful actually, reading this made me reflect/more aware about how to communicate in such a way to be genuine to the original intent, but beyond that—shrewdness (exploring different avenues to best communicate, and the importance of keeping in mind—perhaps the most important aspect, what is to be to communicated in the first place—and as such being slow to speak), as well as how Love can be misunderstood/understood by us and its nuances (E.g., God's word & The Limitations of Language perhaps compared to other modes).
I share this because as I've said, I can understand where you're coming from, but as you know, oftentimes we may not get what we're "initially" looking for. So I find this approach helpful, and perhaps it is helpful precisely because it is true!—Regarding what St. Porphyrios suggested—That God really is in everything, to the one who seeks. Meaning this approach may help you find more of what you first seek in all the things you come across, even if it may not be what you initially seek/sought.
God bless you my friend 💙🙏, may you find more of what you're looking for in your spiritual and intellectual pursuits.
P.s.: Regarding Love—or spiritually and intellectually significant matters, I find the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian and recently St. Porphyrios (Wounded By Love) to be very rewarding and fruitful, perhaps you may find more of what you're looking for there (if you haven't come across those—just a suggestion, my friend).
For a brief insight, to see if what I suggested interests you (and perhaps staying on the topic of communication and its nuances): St. Porphyrios was presented as discussing the importance of permeating positive thoughts, to the extent of even one's own mind: if seeing bad in another, even then, one must think of Good/The Good in that person (and in relation to it).
Concerning others, he discussed the importance of thinking good (Overlooking the bad, focusing on Good, e.g., not seeing the log in the others' eyes). He went beyond in saying that this is the best way to influence positive change (E.g. never thinking of the bad in anyone). This reminded me of things that St. Isaac The Syrian talked about, such as overcoming justice with compassion and mercy—in St. Isaac The Syrian writings, he was presented as talking about How can one call God just for the wages He gives? In such sense, mercy can be understood as above justice. Here I take it that: Justice in some sense is identifying it for what it is, Mercy and compassion is the fulfilment of that in its entirety/perfection—hence looking at the Good and "overlooking the Bad", though I find really there to be no distinction in some sense—What I mean is I find God is best thought of in terms of His Love and Mercy Being Justice Perfected—that He is doing Justice, Justice, simply by Being So Extraordinarily Merciful/Compassionate. So in one sense mercy is beyond/above justice, But in Another, They are in fact referring to the same thing: In such a way I find the two points, although different topics in one sense, actually converge on the same ideal—I believe it to be the case here too in regards to what St. Porphyrios was described as discussing. Admittedly, I struggled with this as I recalled examples of Jesus pointing out certain things in the Pharisees, in essence seeing the Bad—How is that this is indeed the best mindset/outlook as St. Porphyrios suggested, if we desire positive change in our lives and in others, if we are to follow Christ and Christ was described as pointing out the flaws or in essence saw the Bad in the Pharisees? Praying for that and using St. Porphyrios' suggestions in Prayer to God/Christ—I asked for a simple answer because simply God's Spirit is infinitely more than my finitude, and a thought came to me that alleviated and reconciled/synthesise these Truths—The Spirit gives Life, but the letter kills. After a while, I find in essence St. Porphyrios was accurately describing what Christ was doing, even and I'd say specifically in the nuances of how Christ treated others. Of course, one may say Christ was without such logs and so has dealt with others after his, but I Believe in Spirit, I truly see no difference now and take St. Pophyrios' words as describing a more accurate picture of the mode of Christ's dealings whenever encountering others in His Life on Earth. I love St. Pophyrios not only because I find him to be really grounded in things like Saints or Monks being wrong/dogmatism, but For his Love of Christ, Like St. Isaac The Syrian, on this note, I really do believe this principle he suggested is very, very True and practical, and helps explain or better see how Christ interacted with others in Spirit, even though it may seem contrary or problematic.
I hope I didn't write too much here and I do apologize by the way, I try to be consistent but it's something I'm still working on here. I mean to say that I really recommend these writings because I find them to be really Loving and contains much Truth. Personally it helped me to understand more about God/Love and what it really means, so these may serve you well as it did for me.
P.p.s.: I had to translate this post with ChatGPT—although I've learned French for a couple years I've forgotten it, not that I was good with French even then, as a youth I find it can be immensely helpful certainly in this regard. Also thanks to ChatGPT's help in reading/translating parts of this post, though do sharing your outlook, after reading this I find it brought me much joy as I find it interesting and I enjoyed DBH's playful tone here.
In the midst of pessimistic outlooks, I believe these posts are perhaps essential because it brings joy and uplifts one's spirit. So I sincerely thank DBH for this, as it has done that for me and I believe for many others too. So again, I share/can understand your sentiment somewhat—but I'm grateful for gold nuggets like these, always eager to learn more and its a pleasure to read DBH's writings always. May you find all that you seek my friend 💙
P.p.p.s.: I also want to say, but not sure where to fit it in this post, that as far I can understand, DBH has addressed some of the things you asked about here, though they may be scattered amongst his posts here on the forum or elsewhere, I can't remember where specifically so you may have to find out by digging through some older posts, I find searching through key terms of Google helps (Like "phrase match" "phrase term") etc., Specifically regarding your first query and what a better picture may look I recall several older posts here on substack, political philosophy/systems on some webs/forums, and the state and dynamics of Christianity on YouTube and in his book Tradition and Apocalypse [and in some comments on another discussion forum(s)]. God Bless!!!
Hi Steven, here a thought that occurred to me reading you: I'd say it's the theologian who should be a poet, because works of art are more powerful than reason in turning a person's mind towards God. The Christian should be a lover, because in loving the way Christ did, namely selflessly and universally, one actually partakes of the nature of God. And selfless love can be realised in small things, such as smiling at a stranger on the street. Yet this trivial act unites us with God and becomes an eternal part of reality. The Christian should also be an aesthete, because God is not only love, he is also beauty. To experience beauty - even the beauty of small things - is to see God directly. Far from being invisible, God is in fact more visible to us than we are to each other. For we can only see the bodies of others, or their deeds - but we can see God directly. The tragedy, of course, is that many experience beauty without realising that they are seeing God. - I sometimes marvel at how lucky Christians are to be able to understand that Christ is God being love, and the Holy Spirit is God being beauty. Existentially the two forces that push and pull us towards God.
Yes that is Beautifully put Dianelos :) 💙🙏. Thank you for sharing, I agree with much that you've said here 💙 Reminds me of 1 Corinthians 13 — I really do believe that Truth sets us free, so Reasoning is essential as it gets to Truth; But perhaps the most reasonable force is Love after-all 💙 Here perhaps Love really is a work of art/an artform itself (if so, it is one that I hope to become better at or improve on continuously as to how to best keep it in mind or communicate it). Thank you for the wonderful reminder I always thank God for all these amazing things and for everyone here :) God Bless you Dianelos my friend 💙
Off topic (I missed the last QnA opportunity) what do you think about the somewhat growing amount of scholars who accept Marcion priority, that is to say, that Marcion’s Evangelion is the first “gospel” of its type and all the canonical gospels date to the second century as reactions to Marcion’s gospel?
Well, apart from the problem that there is absolutely no proof that it is so and a great deal of proof that it is not, there’s nothing wrong with the proposal.
Dear David, I think I may have found a sub-optimal solution to your problem, which I will call Céline’s unexpected zeugmatic last theorem. One feature of Céline’s writings is his constant use of three dots at the end of his sentences. It sometimes borders on the neurotic in his books. (And I won’t discuss his politics, but the guy had style.)
If we simply add three dots between the “Connaissez-vous” and “votre chien vient de me mordre la cheville”, it seems to me that it would make sense for the pianist to mistake what has just been said for the title of a song. So, it goes like this:
“Un homme dans un bar se fait mordre la cheville par un petit chien, qui, selon le barman, appartient au pianiste. L'homme va voir le pianiste et lui dit : « Connaissez-vous… Ce chien qui vient de me mordre la cheville ? » Le pianiste lui répond : « Non, mais si vous en fredonnez quelques mesures, je peux improviser. »
Yes, sub-optimal. I am not sure if resorting to Céline’s ellipses quite captures the jocose tone of the original. I now see one of his dour characters, taking a long draw on a cigarette, staring at the pianist from angry but melancholy eyes, and speaking in a dry monotone that seems resonant with all the weariness of mortal existence. Plus, the misunderstanding here is more one of ambiguous phrasing rather than whimsical zeugmatical diploidy.
Max Beerbohm's Enoch Soames comes to mind.
Bravo. He should not just come to mind, however. He is the correct answer.
Whatever else may hereafter befall, having been quoted by name in these hallowed pages, I can now die happy.
I can die happy just reading along here… In fact, I suspect my demise of mirth may be in the past tense, but I find myself still lurking in some kind of delirious fog.
I really should try to shake myself out of it and get along to see Waiting for Godot in it’s last week down in Londinium.
Try getting a ‘like’; that’s the real stuff. What greater reward could there be?
A ‘like’ from a penguin.
I’m more than content with my dog liking me, myself.
Part of the problem is that "je peux improviser" lacks the idiomatic flair of "I'll wing it."
I think that you meant to reply to Gaspard.
No, just in general. He’s not the only one to propose that construction, according to yr post.
Oh, so I see.
I'd like to learn from you about more spiritually and intellectually significant matters. I understand and share the general pessimism about the state of humanity, but why not stare at it and discuss it? How do you think the world is faring, what do you think about the place and future of democracy, of the economy, of relations between countries, of the international system? What do you think about the state and dynamics of Christianity, institutionally, intellectually, spiritually? Have your ideas on theodicy evolved since The Doors of the Sea? What do you think about education in the age of AI? If you were to write a accessible book to educate the young, what would it be?
All these matters have been and will be addressed here. But these little filler pieces between the proper articles have their place in the great scheme of things as well. Christmas is coming.
Did my observations on civilization in the Valéry article not touch upon one or two of your concerns?
Yeah yeah yeah, now get off your lazy keister and teach me about more spiritually and intellectually significant matters
Look, you little worm--ahem, I mean, mon cher neveu, darling boy, dewdrop--keep a civil tongue in your head. Put a lid on the obscenity too. I know things about you it would be devastating to you for me to divulge.
Likewise—for instance, that you regard “keister” as an obscenity
Again, you scandalize me.
It’s a good sound English word. I believe it’s in Shakespeare—“Screw thy keister to the dibkin, thy finting is a gainly bublet” if I recall the line
What do you think about education in the age of AI, eh? You’ve beat about the bush on that one for too long if you ask me. Have you any notion of the havoc this Chatbot or whoever he is when he’s at home is wreaking on our most delicate institutions, those whose sacred task is nothing less than the cultivation of the human mind? Eh? Eh? Oh thank you, dear, just put the pot down anywhere, and what have I done with the milk, dear me …
Try to concentrate, Michael. You're always writing at teatime, and its just too distracting for a mind as 'focused' as yours...
It’s probably worse than you think!
Oh, no doubt; it wasn’t meant seriously. It’s moreso meant to comment on its omnipresence, at least among undergrads.
“Little filler pieces”?! I thought this was the main course. My only complaint is that you are not providing the regular updates on the state of the fairy kingdom which you promised some time ago. However, I would put this down to your natural fear of getting abducted for revealing too much.
A wink is as good as a nod. I have a few negotiations with the sidhe to complete, but then I'll be on track again.
Dianelos, just want to say I typed out my reply before DBH commented, and only after submitting did I see his comment—Yes DBH confirmed that some of the matters have been addressed, so I hope the last part of my reply is somewhat accurate (as I was simply recalling from familiarity/memory). Also only after submitting did I realize how much I had typed, my sincerest apologies there, I always try my best to make things as concise as possible but I'm neither a great writer/thinker (in the sense that I have to always revise what I had initially thought out/wrote, writing isn't really my strong suite at all I'd say), and time flies whenever I'm focused on something, I didn't even realize how much time has gone by in my writing of the reply to you Haha Oops. Much love though, my friend, and God Bless you, Take Heart For God is Good! 💙🙏🙌
Dianelos reading your comment it resonates with me deeply, as I share/understand your sentiment, But on the same token, if I may share too: God is present in everything, and so a Christian must be a Poet(Paraphrasing From St. Porphyrios). What I mean is that every matter holds intellectual and spiritual significance.
My Two cents is that there is nothing more spiritually and intellectually significant than Love. If this is true as I believe the Bible teaches, this ought to be our main focus in everything. Regarding such, I found this post helpful actually, reading this made me reflect/more aware about how to communicate in such a way to be genuine to the original intent, but beyond that—shrewdness (exploring different avenues to best communicate, and the importance of keeping in mind—perhaps the most important aspect, what is to be to communicated in the first place—and as such being slow to speak), as well as how Love can be misunderstood/understood by us and its nuances (E.g., God's word & The Limitations of Language perhaps compared to other modes).
I share this because as I've said, I can understand where you're coming from, but as you know, oftentimes we may not get what we're "initially" looking for. So I find this approach helpful, and perhaps it is helpful precisely because it is true!—Regarding what St. Porphyrios suggested—That God really is in everything, to the one who seeks. Meaning this approach may help you find more of what you first seek in all the things you come across, even if it may not be what you initially seek/sought.
God bless you my friend 💙🙏, may you find more of what you're looking for in your spiritual and intellectual pursuits.
P.s.: Regarding Love—or spiritually and intellectually significant matters, I find the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian and recently St. Porphyrios (Wounded By Love) to be very rewarding and fruitful, perhaps you may find more of what you're looking for there (if you haven't come across those—just a suggestion, my friend).
For a brief insight, to see if what I suggested interests you (and perhaps staying on the topic of communication and its nuances): St. Porphyrios was presented as discussing the importance of permeating positive thoughts, to the extent of even one's own mind: if seeing bad in another, even then, one must think of Good/The Good in that person (and in relation to it).
Concerning others, he discussed the importance of thinking good (Overlooking the bad, focusing on Good, e.g., not seeing the log in the others' eyes). He went beyond in saying that this is the best way to influence positive change (E.g. never thinking of the bad in anyone). This reminded me of things that St. Isaac The Syrian talked about, such as overcoming justice with compassion and mercy—in St. Isaac The Syrian writings, he was presented as talking about How can one call God just for the wages He gives? In such sense, mercy can be understood as above justice. Here I take it that: Justice in some sense is identifying it for what it is, Mercy and compassion is the fulfilment of that in its entirety/perfection—hence looking at the Good and "overlooking the Bad", though I find really there to be no distinction in some sense—What I mean is I find God is best thought of in terms of His Love and Mercy Being Justice Perfected—that He is doing Justice, Justice, simply by Being So Extraordinarily Merciful/Compassionate. So in one sense mercy is beyond/above justice, But in Another, They are in fact referring to the same thing: In such a way I find the two points, although different topics in one sense, actually converge on the same ideal—I believe it to be the case here too in regards to what St. Porphyrios was described as discussing. Admittedly, I struggled with this as I recalled examples of Jesus pointing out certain things in the Pharisees, in essence seeing the Bad—How is that this is indeed the best mindset/outlook as St. Porphyrios suggested, if we desire positive change in our lives and in others, if we are to follow Christ and Christ was described as pointing out the flaws or in essence saw the Bad in the Pharisees? Praying for that and using St. Porphyrios' suggestions in Prayer to God/Christ—I asked for a simple answer because simply God's Spirit is infinitely more than my finitude, and a thought came to me that alleviated and reconciled/synthesise these Truths—The Spirit gives Life, but the letter kills. After a while, I find in essence St. Porphyrios was accurately describing what Christ was doing, even and I'd say specifically in the nuances of how Christ treated others. Of course, one may say Christ was without such logs and so has dealt with others after his, but I Believe in Spirit, I truly see no difference now and take St. Pophyrios' words as describing a more accurate picture of the mode of Christ's dealings whenever encountering others in His Life on Earth. I love St. Pophyrios not only because I find him to be really grounded in things like Saints or Monks being wrong/dogmatism, but For his Love of Christ, Like St. Isaac The Syrian, on this note, I really do believe this principle he suggested is very, very True and practical, and helps explain or better see how Christ interacted with others in Spirit, even though it may seem contrary or problematic.
I hope I didn't write too much here and I do apologize by the way, I try to be consistent but it's something I'm still working on here. I mean to say that I really recommend these writings because I find them to be really Loving and contains much Truth. Personally it helped me to understand more about God/Love and what it really means, so these may serve you well as it did for me.
P.p.s.: I had to translate this post with ChatGPT—although I've learned French for a couple years I've forgotten it, not that I was good with French even then, as a youth I find it can be immensely helpful certainly in this regard. Also thanks to ChatGPT's help in reading/translating parts of this post, though do sharing your outlook, after reading this I find it brought me much joy as I find it interesting and I enjoyed DBH's playful tone here.
In the midst of pessimistic outlooks, I believe these posts are perhaps essential because it brings joy and uplifts one's spirit. So I sincerely thank DBH for this, as it has done that for me and I believe for many others too. So again, I share/can understand your sentiment somewhat—but I'm grateful for gold nuggets like these, always eager to learn more and its a pleasure to read DBH's writings always. May you find all that you seek my friend 💙
P.p.p.s.: I also want to say, but not sure where to fit it in this post, that as far I can understand, DBH has addressed some of the things you asked about here, though they may be scattered amongst his posts here on the forum or elsewhere, I can't remember where specifically so you may have to find out by digging through some older posts, I find searching through key terms of Google helps (Like "phrase match" "phrase term") etc., Specifically regarding your first query and what a better picture may look I recall several older posts here on substack, political philosophy/systems on some webs/forums, and the state and dynamics of Christianity on YouTube and in his book Tradition and Apocalypse [and in some comments on another discussion forum(s)]. God Bless!!!
Hi Steven, here a thought that occurred to me reading you: I'd say it's the theologian who should be a poet, because works of art are more powerful than reason in turning a person's mind towards God. The Christian should be a lover, because in loving the way Christ did, namely selflessly and universally, one actually partakes of the nature of God. And selfless love can be realised in small things, such as smiling at a stranger on the street. Yet this trivial act unites us with God and becomes an eternal part of reality. The Christian should also be an aesthete, because God is not only love, he is also beauty. To experience beauty - even the beauty of small things - is to see God directly. Far from being invisible, God is in fact more visible to us than we are to each other. For we can only see the bodies of others, or their deeds - but we can see God directly. The tragedy, of course, is that many experience beauty without realising that they are seeing God. - I sometimes marvel at how lucky Christians are to be able to understand that Christ is God being love, and the Holy Spirit is God being beauty. Existentially the two forces that push and pull us towards God.
Yes that is Beautifully put Dianelos :) 💙🙏. Thank you for sharing, I agree with much that you've said here 💙 Reminds me of 1 Corinthians 13 — I really do believe that Truth sets us free, so Reasoning is essential as it gets to Truth; But perhaps the most reasonable force is Love after-all 💙 Here perhaps Love really is a work of art/an artform itself (if so, it is one that I hope to become better at or improve on continuously as to how to best keep it in mind or communicate it). Thank you for the wonderful reminder I always thank God for all these amazing things and for everyone here :) God Bless you Dianelos my friend 💙
Off topic (I missed the last QnA opportunity) what do you think about the somewhat growing amount of scholars who accept Marcion priority, that is to say, that Marcion’s Evangelion is the first “gospel” of its type and all the canonical gospels date to the second century as reactions to Marcion’s gospel?
There is nothing so absurd that is has not been said by some biblical scholar.
Well, apart from the problem that there is absolutely no proof that it is so and a great deal of proof that it is not, there’s nothing wrong with the proposal.
Je vous remercie pour le petit crédit dans cet article. Quelle surprise! Ce me plais de trouver cette parole de moi levé à un niveau epigrammatique.
Perhaps you might even, as Amanda McKittrick Ros put it, “rise to the shelf of classic.”
Le vertige, la nausée. Une saison en l'étagère!
Charles Méré, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Arthur Rimbaud all invoked (and convoked) in a single line. I approve. All four of you belong on that étagère.
la sorciere glauque ... Anatole France?
No no no no no no no...
Dear David, I think I may have found a sub-optimal solution to your problem, which I will call Céline’s unexpected zeugmatic last theorem. One feature of Céline’s writings is his constant use of three dots at the end of his sentences. It sometimes borders on the neurotic in his books. (And I won’t discuss his politics, but the guy had style.)
If we simply add three dots between the “Connaissez-vous” and “votre chien vient de me mordre la cheville”, it seems to me that it would make sense for the pianist to mistake what has just been said for the title of a song. So, it goes like this:
“Un homme dans un bar se fait mordre la cheville par un petit chien, qui, selon le barman, appartient au pianiste. L'homme va voir le pianiste et lui dit : « Connaissez-vous… Ce chien qui vient de me mordre la cheville ? » Le pianiste lui répond : « Non, mais si vous en fredonnez quelques mesures, je peux improviser. »
Yes, sub-optimal. I am not sure if resorting to Céline’s ellipses quite captures the jocose tone of the original. I now see one of his dour characters, taking a long draw on a cigarette, staring at the pianist from angry but melancholy eyes, and speaking in a dry monotone that seems resonant with all the weariness of mortal existence. Plus, the misunderstanding here is more one of ambiguous phrasing rather than whimsical zeugmatical diploidy.
Oh, and yes, the less said about Céline’s politics the better (not to mention his treatment of women).
100%
Ignorez-vous que votre chien se comporte mal? Je l'ignore en effet, fredonnez-moi l'air.
This is an interesting tack. Shift to the negative interrogative. But that "que" remains a thorn in the side of the joke.